Reintegration Challenges of Released Prisoners: The Case of Tangail Central Jail, Bangladesh

Reintegration Challenges of Released Prisoners: The Case of Tangail Central Jail, Bangladesh

Md. Masud Nabi, ^*Dr. Rukhsana Siddiqua, Dr. Md. Omar Faruk

Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Bangladesh

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803218S

Received: 10 July 2024; Accepted: 03 August 2024; Published: 29 August 2024

ABSTRACT

Reintegrating into society after being released from prison is a difficult process that requires assistance from a variety of sources. During the process of reintegrating into society, a released prisoner encounters various challenges and has an impact on the reintegration process. Social stigma and the persistent stigma attached to having a criminal record make these difficulties worse. The purpose of this study is to investigate the issues and challenges faced by released convicts as they reintegrate into society and to comprehend the effects of incarceration on that process. The impact of family relationships, community support, and economic status on the reintegration process is also examined in this study. This study used a purposive sampling technique to pick its primary sample, which was a quantitative, descriptive study. Through the use of a survey questionnaire, information was obtained from a number of primary sources. The results of this study indicate that family support plays a major role in reintegration and presents fewer challenges for released prisoners. However, less support from society, economic conditions, and released prisoners themselves present significant challenges and have a significant impact. Along with a brief comparison of their occupations before and after release, this study looks at the sociodemographic status of released inmates. Proper support of family and economic self-reliance spurs the reintegration process. Society can endeavor to create an atmosphere that supports rehabilitation and eliminates stigmatization which facilitates people’s successful reintegration into society after incarceration and lowers recidivism.

Keywords: Released Prisoners, Reintegration, Challenges, Issues, Impact, Bangladesh.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Reintegrating criminals into society is a multidimensional process with the goal of assisting those with a criminal past to become productive and law-abiding members of their neighbourhoods. In Bangladesh, a crucial challenge following incarceration is the successful reintegration of released prisoners back into society. While prisons serve to punish and deter crime, a key aspect of the justice system lies in preparing individuals for a positive return to their communities. This process, however, is often fraught with difficulties. Employment, supportive family dynamics, and positive social interactions foster optimism in ex-prisoners, while drug abuse, resulting in unemployment, stigma within prisons due to lack of mental support, and the prison environment hinder social reintegration (Sharmin, 2021). If individuals released from incarceration struggle to adapt to the evolving standards of society, they may resort to unlawful behaviours in an effort to meet their needs and unable to financially sustain themselves after release or if they feel compelled by their disadvantaged economic situation, they may revert to criminal activities (Yesmen, 2022). The process of prisoner reintegration can serve as a framework to assess the effectiveness of our correctional policies, philosophies of punishment, service roles, and recent reforms in the prison system, guiding us in determining whether we are heading in the right or wrong direction (Kashem, 1996). Stigma from society further complicates matters, making it incredibly difficult for released individuals to secure housing and employment. This lack of support can push them back towards criminal activity, creating a vicious cycle that weakens public safety.

Prisons are places where ‘unwanted’ people are taken out of society and punished for their crimes, along with the apparent intention of keeping them from committing new crimes (Muntingh, 2002). In the modern criminal justice system, there has been a shift towards prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment. The prison system’s role in facilitating the reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals has garnered significant attention in recent years (Visher et al., 2004). The chief inspector of prisons in England and Wales has emphasized that jails should prioritize education, training, and rehabilitation. He also emphasises the reorientation of prisons to focus on rehabilitation, training, and education to reduce reoffending and successful reintegration (Jones, 2023). Various measures have been implemented to support reintegration, emphasizing education, vocational training, mental health services, and community support. Educational programs in prisons seek to reduce recidivism by improving inmates’ skills and knowledge and enhancing their employment prospects after release. Vocational training offers practical job market skills, bridging the gap between incarceration and employment. Mental health services provide therapy and ongoing support to address inmates’ psychological challenges both during and after incarceration (Heseltine et al., 2011). These deliberate measures indicate a growing recognition of the importance of supporting reintegration to reduce recidivism and promote public safety.

The idea of offender reintegration often brings to mind social workers counselling prisoners and ex-prisoners to dissuade them from criminal behaviour. Some people perceive offender reintegration as being lenient on crime and overly sympathetic to criminals (Muntingh, 2002). The objective of reintegration is to ‘have someone back in our midst who has completed his legal commitments to society by completing his terms and has proven capacity to live by society’s laws’ (Travis, 2000). Once inmates come home after completing their sentences, society is confronted with a number of issues. Reentry’s goal is to successfully reintegrate inmates who have been released into society (Anderson-Facile, 2009). Reintegration involves aiding prisoners in maintaining positive connections with their social According to Fox (2002), significant reintegration challenges include public stigmatization and the prisons’ failure to effectively prepare inmates to become productive, law-abiding citizens upon release (Osayi, 2023). The effects of unsuccessful reintegration affect not just the person but also the larger community and society as a whole. For someone with a criminal record, traversing these areas successfully might be particularly difficult and frequently experience stigmatization and prejudice, which can make it difficult for them to find permanent accommodation and a job (Travis, 2018). When reintegration fails, there are frequently high recidivism rates and the continuation of a criminal cycle (Visher et al., 2010). These problems affect public safety, family stability, and the criminal justice system, and they have broad social and economic ramifications. According to Travis et al. (2006), broken family and community ties frequently result from unsuccessful reintegration. Moreover, the fiscal implications of high recidivism rates are substantial. Support for formerly incarcerated individuals to remain out of the criminal justice system is insufficient (Pittaro, 2020).

According to the study of the Legislative Analyst’s Office [LAO] (2017), factors include antisocial behaviour, antisocial personality, criminal thinking, antisocial relationships, family and marital status, school and work status, leisure and recreational activities, and substance use may cause of criminal activity. Islam and Goswami (2019) identify and state psychological factors of recidivism; Poverty and Lack of Education, Unemployment problems, psychological problems, Commission of crime as a profession, Initial criminal act, Impact of other criminals, Lack of fear, Criminal Tendency, Habit formation. Personal factors such as low self-esteem, motivation, skills deficits, inadequate training, mental illness, substance abuse, unstable economic history, and poor social and cognitive skills are prevalent among incarcerated individuals (Osayi, 2023). Quetelet (1796–1844) used statistics to show that some persons were more inclined to commit crimes than others, particularly young men who were both impoverished and illiterate. Working class and transitional houses are more prone to commit a crime, according to the ‘Ecological theory of the Concentric Zone’ by Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, who also notes that crime is reliant on geography.

Reintegration into society is difficult and frequently causes many challenges for people who have served time in prison. Subsistence conditions; intrapersonal conditions; and support conditions are three domains that can be used to conceptualize variables that affect reintegration (Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009). The ‘Returning Home’ research under the Urban Institute sheds light on the numerous issues that post-release inmates, their families, and communities must deal with as they attempt to rehouse the offenders in suitable accommodation. Returning inmates encounter a variety of difficulties, such as locating employment, housing, and drug addiction treatment; getting back in touch with family; and reintegrating into society (Visher et al., 2004). Significant issues with their physical, emotional, and social well-being, and many lack enough family and community assistance and are stigmatized further by having a criminal record after being released (Petersilia, 2003). In order to support ex-offenders in finding suitable employment and housing and to enhance reintegration efforts, the criminal justice system requires greater funding. This will reduce the likelihood that these individuals will commit crimes again (Pittaro, 2020).

Mallard and DeBacker (2017) state that reintegration is a complex process with social, economic, and psychological components (Travis, 2018). People encounter numerous challenges, and the presence of both familial support and strains can significantly impact their behaviors, both positively and negatively (Dockery, 2019).  According to the study of Visher et al. (2004)., 75% of pre-released inmates said that having a place to live was essential for success outside of jail. The chance of obtaining lodging with family after release is decreased as a result of fewer family visits and other kinds of family communication owing to lengthier jail terms (Lynch and Sabol, 2001). Strong family ties have been linked to better post-release reintegration, employment, and housing outcomes for convicts. Research by Home Office (2004) and Seymour (2006) has shown that those who are released from prison without a permanent residence have reoffending rates that can reach twenty percentage points greater than those of those who do not (Maguire and Nolan, 2012). According to the study of Poyser and Hopkins (2012), less than half (47%) of prisoners who had experienced homelessness prior to their incarceration were reconvicted within a year of their release, in contrast to those who had not (Willis, 2018). Also, the recidivism rate is decreased by support from family members. Finding strategies to maintain the family unit is essential for success after releasing in situations where there is a strong family link. Compared to the prisoner’s ties with his or her extended family, those with intimate partners and children were less secure (Naser and La Vigne, 2006). The strengthening of ties with family members may encourage people to stop committing crimes. Those who don’t have close familial ties could find connection with rebellious peers more tempting (Laub and Sampson, 2003). Several academics have verified the link between family support and decreased recidivism rates. Ex-offenders frequently give in to temptation and commit crimes again if they are made to return to the same harmful surroundings that led to their original incarceration (Pittaro, 2020).

Nonetheless, a lot of ex-offenders have trouble getting work after their release. They frequently have weak educational backgrounds and little professional experience when they enter prison (Visher et al., 2004). The previous study also states that regardless of whether they had been successful in obtaining employment, two-thirds (64%) of respondents said they had spent some time seeking work after being released from jail.  Inmates frequently lose their employment skills and miss out on opportunities to obtain experience while they are incarcerated and Long-term imprisonment may erode social relationships that provide doors to legitimate employment after release (Western et al., 2001). The stigma of being an ex-offender makes finding a job considerably harder after release. Many offenders find it challenging to reintegrate since they are dealing with many issues at once (Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009). The majority of ex-offenders lack the necessary literacy or employable job skills to find meaningful employment. Many hiring companies run criminal background checks on potential hires and turn away those who have (Pittaro, 2020). According to several studies, recidivism results are influenced by a person’s work happiness as well as whether or not they are employed (Sampson and Laub, 2006).  When survey data on employers’ readiness to recruit ex-offenders was investigated, it was discovered that almost 60% of respondents said they would not accept inmates who had just been released (Holzer et al., 2002). As they are released from prison, ex-offenders find it difficult to obtain a job because of their lack of skills, criminal histories, and the stigma associated with being convicted (Solomon et al., 2004). To place post-release inmates in occupations, hurdles such as high unemployment, unwilling employers, occupational licensing limitations, limited/outdated work abilities, and transportation must all be removed (Anderson-Facile, 2009). Many people struggle to obtain work since they are frequently illiterate and lack the necessary job skills (Seiter and Kadela, 2003). They could not have the training necessary to make them competitive candidates and they might encounter technological advancements that are crucial in emerging employment marketplaces (Juda, 2022).

The adverse social attitude was highlighted as a significant barrier to the social reintegration of released prisoners (Sharmin, 2021).Top of Form Researchers have identified social support and involvement as crucial factors in promoting successful reentry. Social support aids formerly incarcerated individuals in obtaining housing and employment (Dockery, 2019). Limited access to society and housing may cause re-offending. Some researchers and professionals believe that community engagement in prisoner reintegration is beneficial (Lynch and Sabol, 2001).

By providing a thorough knowledge of the complex difficulties experienced by those who have been detained in the past and the significant ramifications for society, this study is of utmost importance. It has the potential to lower recidivism rates and increase public safety by informing important facets of criminal justice policy. The study also highlights the significance of family and community well-being in the reintegration process as well as the need to address the financial difficulties brought on by unsuccessful reintegration. In the end, it seeks to sever the link between crime and jail, lessening the long-term effects on society and fostering a more fair, secure, and economically productive society.

The purpose of this research study is to examine the difficulties in reintegrating that people with a criminal record encounter, as well as the effects that these difficulties have on the person, their community, and society at large. The goal of this study is to advance knowledge of the difficulties that the reintegration process entails by examining these obstacles and their effects. The following objectives were devised for the study:

1. The study tends to examine the nature of reintegration challenges faced by released prisoners.
2. To identify the factors affecting the reintegration process of released prisoners.

METHOD

This research paper employed quantitative study, which incorporate how the factors affecting post-release life and what issues and challenges faced by the released prisoners. The design was chosen to facilitate the inclusion of a larger sample size, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at a population level, and the use of statistical techniques to analyze data and compare across different variables.

The study is being conducted in Tangail. The convicted prisoners who were released from Tangail Central jail and incarcerated for more than 1 year were selected as the population of the study. Participants were purposively sampled non-probability sampling who represent a cross-section of the released prisoners from Tangail Central jail from the population of the study. The sample size of the study is 52 calculated by using the Solvin formula.

Slovin’s formula:

                            Here, 𝑛 = 𝑁 ÷ (1 + 𝑁𝑒²)                                                Population size, 𝑁 = 110
= 110 ÷ (1 + 110 × 0.1²)                                       Sampling error, 𝑒 = 0.1
= 52.38                                                                          Sample size, 𝑛 =?
≈ 52

Data were gathered from a selection of primary sources using a structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions. The 5-point Likert scale was used to measure the severity of the behaviour. A survey conducted in person has been utilized to comprehensively address all facets of the objectives of participants. Participants were recruited through face-to-face surveys or in-person interviews. After providing informed consent, participants completed the survey questionnaire with a rigorous understanding of the questionnaire.

The analysis of the study was conducted by using statistical tools of SPSS for descriptive and inferential statistics. Frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation are to summarize and describe the characteristics of a single dataset, provide a snapshot of the dataset, and chi-square for the association between categorical variables in a population where educational qualification and successful rehabilitation and skills development training are independent variables; society’s attitude and recidivism are dependent variables. Spearman’s correlation is used to measure the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two continuous variables, where social support is a dependent variable and current status are independent variables (age, monthly income, post-release job difficulty and impact of criminal record) where statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Crosstabulation visually displays the relationship between two categorical variables. Spearman correlation and crosstabulation are used in this study to identify the factors affecting reintegration.

This study is a voluntary participation of the respondents who are released after serving a sentence. Obtain informed consent from the participants verbally after they have received a clear explanation of the study’s objectives, procedures and questionnaire by maintaining the proper understanding using proper language that is easy to understand, considering participants’ education levels. Respondents’ right to withdraw any questions or at any point of the questionnaire was ensured properly. The respondents were not interested in participating in this study or did not provide verbal consent not included in this study and were also excluded from the population to maintain the sampling procedure. Name and trace any information were avoided to maintain the anonymity of the respondents. Ensured participants have strict confidentiality and won’t disclose any information and their provided information will not affect any aspect of their lives.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Table 1

Socio-demographic information of released prisoners.

This study was conducted by a survey of 52 respondents who were convicted for their criminal activity and released after confinement. The age distribution of respondents a wide range, with 74.9% of the total falling between the ages of 32 and 55. The population’s educational backgrounds show that a sizeable part only has an elementary education (34.6%), while a noteworthy 23.1% are illiterate. According to family literacy levels, the majority of families (57.7%) lack literacy, whereas a small percentage have SSC or higher education. The majority of people (78.8%) lived in villages, with only a tiny proportion (19.2%) and 1.9% in urban and semi-urban areas. Joint families make up the majority of family structures (63.5%), with nuclear families making up the remaining 36.5%. This data gives an overview of a community that is primarily rural, less educated, and has a high incidence of joint family structures.

The nature of the challenges to the reintegration into society of the respondents

A complicated network of obstacles awaits ex-offenders as they attempt to reintegrate into society following jail. They often miss this crucial stage, which lowers the probability of recidivism and has a substantial impact on their prospects of a successful recovery. This study explores the range of challenges that ex-offenders encounter when reintegrating back into society, using primary data.

Table 2: Family support and challenges to the respondents during and after confinement.

The support and assistance of family is a critical factor in reintegrating a released prisoner. A positive response may reduce further criminal activity and impact successful reintegration. The table (Table 2) shows the support and response of the respondent’s family during and after confinement. The mean of 4.3653 of respondents’ families helped to find after release represent strongly agree or always had support, which means that most of the respondents have positive responses to finding housing after release. Following the support of maintaining contract during and after release from prison mean of 3.5. This results from respondents almost always having a contract or agreeing with the statement of having a contract with the family. The mean of 3.1731 of having the support of family to find a job indicates that sometimes or true to some extent of the statement of having support to find a job after release. Having financial assistance (3.0577) and psychological support (2.6731) from family represents sometimes they find support from family or finding this support from family may true but including some extent.

Help to find a job possesses a greater standard deviation (1.39637) means it is most spread out from the mean and has less significance and providing financial assistance has 0.91638 standard deviations means less spread out and more significance. In terms of the significance of data, the order of data: Psychological support > Financial assistance > Maintaining contract > Helps to find housing > Helps to find a job.

Table 3: Economic challenges on the reintegration of respondents.

Economic factors and the status of released prisoners may affect the reintegration process of released prisoners due to the independent financial status of people who are less vulnerable to the weaker ones and also impact the determination of recidivism. Convicts who have specialized skills learned in prison or have from prior life have a greater stable life after release due to these skills helping them to get jobs and financial stability which results in a significant effect in reintegration. Table 4 shows the respondents who selected various options indicating the influence of different economic factors on reintegration into society after release from incarceration. According to the table, 3.6923 mean of the role of economic factors in reintegration represents the view of the respondent was agrees with the statement and almost always has an effect on reintegration. In finding employment after release from prison respondents responded that they almost always find a job after release which means that the identity of a released prisoner is not highly affective in finding a job but may have effect according to qualification. Economic challenges faced by respondents refer to the financial difficulties that formerly incarcerated individuals may face after release. The table indicates that the mean of 2.9231, respondents said they sometimes faced economic challenges after release. The belief that the difficulty for released prisoners to find a job after release refers to the challenges that individuals with a criminal record face when trying to find employment. The mean of 2.8654 represents the belief that the statement is true to some extent by the respondents.

The standard deviation of 0.65765 of difficulty for released prisoners to find a job after the release is most least spread-out data from the mean and higher significance of the mean result. The following significant data on the role of an economic factor in reintegration (0.70122) suggests that the responses towards the role of economic facto reintegration were relatively consistent and clustered closely around the mean. The standard deviation of 0.92559 of economic challenges faced suggests that the responses were relatively consistent and clustered closely around the mean. Find employment since your release has a standard deviation of 1.16251 is higher, indicating more variability in the responses.

Figures 2 and 3: Influence of societal Challenges on reintegration.

Figure 1

Figure 2

One of the principal concerns of the study was how the citizens of the society where respondents belong respond to the reintegration of the respondents into society. This study measures this through society’s view and attitude of society against respondents. The majority of the respondents, (46.2%) identified themselves as resettlement criminals/General citizens, indicating that they had a criminal background but now they are reformed (Figure 1). Meanwhile, 30.8% identified respondents’ beliefs that citizen of society sees them as criminals and 23.2% of respondents deem that attitude of society towards them as a potential criminal, indicating that they may engage in criminal behaviour in the future (Figure 2). Cumulatively 53.8% of respondents were seen negatively and 46.2% positively.

The factors affecting the reintegration of released prisoners

The reintegration of released prisoners is influenced by a variety of factors that can either facilitate or hinder their successful return to society. These factors widest from personal to societal or community which may facilitate the challenges and support to the released prisoners. Addressing these factors comprehensively can significantly improve the chances of successful reintegration and understanding how they’re impacted.

Figure 3: Comparison between occupations before and after convict and released from prison.

This figure (Figure 3) indicates that the group of students was 21.2% of respondents before convicted and after convicted and released from prison decreased to 1.9%. Confinement has a significant effect on students’ possible cause of possible dropout and study gap. Unemployment decreased from 34.6% to 28.8% which was a positive effect; perhaps offenders going through rehabilitation have an effect on decreasing unemployment. Similarly, Politics decrease from 13.5% to 11.5%. Non-governmental employees increased (1.9% to 23.15) than before convicted. Similarly, laborers 17.3% to 23.1%. Increase of employment, labour and decrease of unemployment vis-a-vice. Changes in occupation would contribute as an influential factor in reintegration. Reducing employment would provide a positive contribution and increase comparatively fewer economic challenges after release from prison. Which would passively contribute to societal attitudes towards the respondents.

Table 4: Influence of societal and personal factors on reintegration.

Societal and personal factor has a direct impact on view and attitudes towards released prisoners in the reintegration process. Positive responses to factors like the impact of criminal activity, and social support expedite the reintegration process and the negative response has a vis-a-vice impact. This factor has a connived impact on the respondent’s family has faced problems also oriented to other factors. Table 3 provides information relating to societal and personal factors in their lives. For the impact of criminal activity, 2.8462 mean of respondents reported sometimes which means that they believed the impact of criminal activity has a pretty effect on reintegration. The mean of 2.75 for societal support also represents sometimes effect of the reintegration process. The family faces problems have the 2.0385 mean represents rarely true or does not agree with the statement.

The standard deviation of the factor was pretty same and showed not much spread out from the mean with little variability among respondents. The impact of criminals has a lower standard deviation (0.89409). The standard deviation of societal support (0.94713) and the family faces problems (0.94892) indicates that there is a higher level of variability among respondents for this factor compared to the impact of the criminal activity factor. This representation means that the impact of criminal activity affecting reintegration is more evident than social support and convicted family faces problems affecting reintegration. Criminal activity or the nature of criminal activity has a greater impact than other variables. In terms of the significance of data, the order of data: Impact of criminal activity > Societal support > The family faces problems.

Table 5: Crosstabulation among current assessments to themselves, commit crime as a choice and commit crime as an external factor.

The crosstabulation table presents the relationship of current assessment to respondents by society (whether they perceive themselves the same as before, better than before, or confused/not sure at all) with their inclination towards committing a crime as either a choice or due to external factors in terms of expected count. Crosstabulation of the current assessment of respondents with respondents who committed the crime as a choice representing the highest 26.8 expected count as better than before and 12.1 expected count was same as before of those respondents who committed the crime as their choice; on the other hand, committing the crime wasn’t a choice has lowest 0.9 expected count as note sure at all by respondents and 4.2 expected count perceived better than before. Crosstabulation of the current assessment to respondents with respondents committing the crime as external factor represents the highest 17.3 expected count as better than before, and 7.8 as same as before. But for those who commit crimes not to external factors, 6.2 have a negative self-assessment, 13.7 have a positive one, and 3.1 are confused or unsure. Among individuals who perceive themselves as better than before, there is a higher proportion who commit crimes, whether as a choice or due to external factors. Specifically, 12.1 individuals with a positive self-assessment commit crime as a choice, while 7.8 do so due to external factors.

Table 6: Crosstabulation between intent to commit crimes and current assessment of respondents.

The crosstabulation table presents the relationship between respondents’ current self-assessment by society (whether they perceive themselves the same as before, better than before, or confused/not sure at all) and the purpose behind their committing crimes, categorized into three types: general, specific and constructive (unintentional). Among individuals who perceive themselves as the same as before, the table indicates that the expected count of 6.7 as individuals commit crimes for general purposes, 5.7 for specific purposes, and 1.6 for constructive reasons. In contrast, among those who perceive themselves as better than before, there’s a higher expected count of individuals engaging in criminal behaviour, with 14.9 committing crimes for general purposes, 12.5 for specific purposes, and 3.6 for constructive reasons. For individuals who are confused or not sure at all about their self-assessment, the counts are relatively lower, with the expected count of 3.4 committing crimes for general purposes, 2.8 for specific purposes, and 0.8 for constructive reasons. It indicates that those who perceive themselves more positively (better than before) who commit crime as general intent not specific outcome, regardless of the purpose, while those with a more uncertain self-assessment show lower counts of criminal activity across all purposes.

Table 7: Crosstabulation among convicted for crime with society’s view to the respondent, respondents’ family had faced problems and post-released employment problems.

The crosstabulation table presents the percentages of individuals convicted for various crimes, categorized by different factors such as society’s view of the respondent, whether the respondent’s family had faced problems, and whether the respondent faced employment problems post-release. Regarding society’s view of the respondent, those respondents convicted of murder 29.2%, 20.8% of dacoity and 12.5% of conflict and firearms cases perceived society’s positive view. Respondents of drug-related crime 28.6 %, theft 21.4 %, and 14.3 % of firearms cases perceived a negative attitude toward society. Respondents whose families had faced problems tend to have higher percentages of conviction across various crime categories of drug-related crime, firearms, rape and conflicting with 25% convicted for this type of crime cause of social stigmatization and negative social attitude not only to convicted but also to the families. Which leads to less acceptability in society and causes significant reintegration challenges. On the other hand, respondents convicted of a crime like theft (12.5%), murder (20.8%), and dacoity (14.6%), perceived fewer problems faced by the respondent’s families which indicates this nature of crime caused by comparatively lower reintegration challenges to the respondents family. Offender family faces problems due to the nature of the crime of respondents causing passive reintegration challenges which would be eliminated by a positive societal view, avoiding stigmatization and giving a second chance to convicted. Regarding employment problems post-release, there’s a notable difference in the percentages of convictions for certain crimes. Respondents facing post-release employment problems have higher percentages of conviction for drug-related crimes (50%), firearms cases (25%), murder (12.5%) and snatching (12.5%) compared to theft (13.6%), murder (20.5%), dacoity (15.9%). The table indicates potential associations between societal perceptions, family background, post-release employment status, and the likelihood of conviction for different types of crimes. It suggests that societal support, family stability, and post-release opportunities may play roles in reducing criminal involvement and recidivism.

Hypothesis Test- 1

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no association between successful rehabilitation of ex-offenders and successful skills development training that can prevent recidivism.

Table: 8

The table represents the Pearson Chi-square test for independence between successful rehabilitation of ex-offenders and successful skills development training that can prevent recidivism. The ‘Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)’ p-values for both Pearson’s Chi-Square (0.003) and Likelihood Ratio (0.001) are much lower than 0.05. The p-value is less than the common significance level. There is evidence to suggest that the two categorical variables (successful rehabilitation and skill development training, prevent recidivism) are not independent. Similar to the Chi-square test, the small p-value of the likelihood ratio Chi-square (0.001) indicates that we reject the null hypothesis. The variables are likely associated. Cramer’s V of 0.553 indicates a moderate association between the two variables. So, this interpretation strongly suggests we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude a statistically significant association between successful rehabilitation and training preventing recidivism.

There’s strong evidence for an association between successful rehabilitation and successful skills development training programs potentially preventing recidivism.

Hypothesis Test- 2

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no association between educational qualification and society’s attitude toward offenders.

Table: 9

The Pearson’s Chi-Square test for independence with α=0.05 is statistically significant, χ²(2, N=52) =24.624, p = 0.002, with Cramer’s V confidence of 0.354 indicating a fair association between educational qualification and society’s attitude toward offenders. The null hypothesis, which states that there is no association between educational qualification and society’s attitude toward offenders and the two variables are independent of one another, is rejected in this instance because the p-value is less than the conventional alpha value and concludes a statistically significant association between educational qualification and societal attitude towards offenders. There’s a statistically significant association between educational qualification and societal attitudes towards offenders. People with different educational backgrounds might be perceived differently by society concerning offenders.

Table 10: Correlation of social support in reintegration with age, monthly Income, post-release job difficulty and impact of criminal record.

The table represents Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients Societal Support with Age, Monthly Income, Post Release Job difficulty and Impact of Criminal Record. The correlation coefficient between Societal Support and Age is a positive correlation. Spearman’s rank correlation between the two variables is 0.396 and here df=50 and p value= 0.004 which represent a significant moderate correlation, suggesting that as the age of the offender increases their perception of Societal Support also tends to increase. The correlation of Societal Support and Monthly Income, r (50) = 0.383, p= 0.005 is also a moderately positive correlation, suggesting that support of society positively increases with the income of the respondent. Monthly income has a parallel effect on social support. However, the correlation of Social Support and Post post-release job difficulty is negative. The correlation is -0.466 and the value is 0.000 with df of 50 representing a moderate negative correlation between the variables, which means having post-release job difficulty decreases social support to reintegrate into society. The correlation between Societal Support and the Impact of Criminal records has also a negative correlation. Here r (50) = -0.508, p=0.000 represents a strong negative correlation between the two variables, which means the criminal record has a strong impact on having social support.

DISCUSSION

Nature of challenges

This research has illuminated the multifaceted challenges that released prisoners in Bangladesh face as they attempt to reintegrate into society. The challenges related to family actively impacted the whole reintegration process. The study found that the majority of the respondent’s contract with the family includes his or her commitment to locate accommodation following release. Little support from families to respondents both financial and psychological support, as well as help managing their income source following release. Finding housing post-release has greatly determined the recidivism and this study found that most of the respondents found helps to find housing from family. Recent research indicates that tangible and emotional support from family contributes to positive outcomes post-release, including securing employment and reducing substance use (Visher et al., 2004; Sharmin, 2021). Respondents indicated they had close family relationships before incarceration and felt their families were supportive both before and during their time in prison (Naser & La Vigne, 2006). The role of economic factors in reintegration represents the view of the respondent almost always affects reintegration. The identity of a released prisoner is not highly effective but has little effect on finding a job according to qualifications. Respondents sometimes faced economic challenges after release. The difficulty for released prisoners to find a job after the release is true to some extent by the respondents. According to the study of Western et al. (2001) and Juda (2022), respondents face significant economic challenges in economic support and finding employment after release and also lack of proper skills and proper resources hinder the occupational opportunities of released prisoners. Obstacles including excessive unemployment, uncooperative businesses, restrictions on occupational licenses, outmoded or limited work abilities, and transportation for post-release offenders are significant (Anderson-Facile, 2009).  Societal acceptance and support play the most significant role in reintegration. This study found that most of the respondents found a lack of social support and the respondents’ family face no significant problem due to incarceration. The view and the attitude of society or the community determine whether a released prisoner is perceived as isolated or not, and this determines the success of reintegration. This study found that society’s views and attitudes are pretty negative, as perceived by more than half of the respondents, including those perceived as criminals and potential criminals and the result is pretty similar to Naser and La Vigne (2006) study, which found that most (53.8%) of the respondents believed that negative perception or society’s view towards them which.

Factor affecting reintegration

Occupational status would influence the reintegration process passively by actively influencing economic challenges and determining societal attitudes. This study found that post-release occupation changes due to incarceration have an impact on reintegration which is evident by the study of Shinkfield and Graffam (2009), which found that it was anticipated that participants’ financial situations would improve after release, based on the expectation that more of them would secure gainful employment. The intent of committing crimes contributes to the assessment of the respondents. Respondents who commit crime as a choice perceived a more positive assessment than respondents who commit crime due to an external factor. Respondents who committed crimes of purpose in general perceived them better than respondents who committed crimes of specific and constructive purpose. The nature of the crime convicted for is a highly influential factor in the reintegration process. In order of crime, drug-related crime, theft, firearms cases, and murder have the most negative social views towards respondents, and the respondent’s family faces problems that passively impact reintegration.  This study also found that higher age, monthly income, and education are positive factors in social support, acceptance, and reintegration. Successful rehabilitation of ex-offenders and successful skills development training that can prevent recidivism are evidenced by the hypothesis test in this study and the moderate association found. Individuals who engaged in multiple rehabilitation programs were found to commit fewer offences compared to those who participated only once. The presence of positive reinforcement in rehabilitation contributes to a reduction in criminal behaviours (Lebbie, 2021). A fair association between educational qualification and social attitude toward respondents was also founded by the hypothesis test. According to the correlation of the study found that age is a critical factor for post-released social support and has a positive relation. Greater age and educational qualifications of respondents found greater support, which is evident by the study of Sharmin (2021) found that age and educational qualification appear to be a critical factor in the process of reintegration.

Limitations

The study’s findings may be constrained by the sample size and its representativeness. Confidentiality issues prevented the inclusion of statistics on the current population of convicts and the number of individuals reintegrated into the community annually, which could have strengthened the study. Concentrating exclusively on Tangail Central Jail may limit the generalizability of the results, as the specific conditions, resources, and challenges of this jail might not reflect those of other prisons in Bangladesh or elsewhere. To enhance the study’s outcomes, a cross-sectional approach and a comparative analysis across different jails and regions would be beneficial for further study.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has the potential to significantly advance knowledge of the difficulties and issues encountered by released prisoners and to improve reintegration plans. The recommendation would contribute to policymakers the way forward to eliminate the challenges and foster successful reintegration:

1. Incarceration significantly impacts students and could lead to increased post-release dropout rates and academic gaps. Community officials and prison authorities implement education campaigns, rehabilitation programs and skill development training that can aid in post-release employment and prioritize job placement.
2. Throughout society and the community have to reduce negative views towards released prisoners and stigmatization.
3. Post-release accommodation support and contact during and after incarceration by family have a significant impact. So, families of convicted prisoners have to supportive attitude.
4. Release after confinement, financial stability and employment have a significant impact. To provide job-release prisoners not to stigmatize on the basis of incarceration.
5. Implement a comprehensive program offering psychological support services to convicted prisoners and ensure post-release psychological well-being to prevent aberrant behaviour from forming.
6. Address the economic challenges and promote a collaborative approach to the elimination of economic challenges to prevent recidivism.
7. Successful rehabilitation of ex-offenders and successful skills development training to prevent recidivism.
8. In the process of reintegrating freed inmates, the community, family, and peers must be supportive.

CONCLUSION

The impact of challenges on reintegration and factors affecting reintegration into society is complex and multifaceted. The study aims to investigate the difficulties faced by released prisoners in reintegrating into society and to comprehend the effect of incarceration on that process. The difficulties of family, society, and the economy’s influence on work, housing, relationships, and diversity in private life both before and after release. The challenges faced by released prisoners are multidimensional and more or less, stigmatization and discrimination face multiple sectors. The difficulties with reintegration support the impact’s importance in this study. This study illustrates how a released prisoner’s life alters following their confinement. This study sheds light on what happens to freed inmates when they are released from jail and how their peers, family, and society see them. There is relevance in the changes in the occupation of released inmates. Released inmates’ pre and post-incarceration occupations differ greatly. Families generally support and react positively to released prisoners, despite the majority of society’s negative attitudes against them. Reintegration is impacted by both economic circumstances and one’s previous reputation in society. This study makes a significant addition to maintaining the difficulties in reintegrating freed inmates and the ways in which these difficulties affect reintegration. This survey makes it abundantly evident that society has a negative view towards freed inmates. Additionally, the study made the case for the importance of family, social, and financial support in helping released prisoners reintegrate into society. The study’s conclusions recommend appropriate measures to change society’s perception of released prisoners, and that family and community support may be important for a successful reintegration process.  Appropriate rehabilitation programs can facilitate reintegration and help with post-release employment and financial stability. Increased initiative by stakeholders towards the reintegration of released convicts is another possibility.

REFERENCES

1. Anderson‐Facile, D. (2009). Basic Challenges to Prisoner Reentry. Sociology Compass, 3(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00198.x
2. Dockery, A. (2019). The Influence of Social Support on Recidivism of Formerly Incarcerated Individuals [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/ view content. cgi? article=9469&context=dissertations
3. Heseltine, K., Sarre, R., & Day, A. (2011). Prison-based correctional rehabilitation: An overview of intensive interventions for moderate to high-risk offenders. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti272596
4. Holzer, H., Stoll, M. A., & Raphael, S. (2002). Can Employers Play a More Positive Role in Prisoner Reentry? In Urban Institute. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/can-employers-play-more-positive-role-prisoner-reentry
5. Ike, T. J., Jidong, D. E., Ike, M. L., & Ayobi, E. E. (2023). Public perceptions and attitudes towards ex-offenders and their reintegration in Nigeria: A mixed-method study. Criminology & Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231181987
6. Islam, S., & Goswami, A. (2019). A Study on Criminal and Sociological Behavior of The Recidivist and Its Remedial Actions Regarding the Criminal Law of Bangladesh. International Journal of Legal Studies, 5(1), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.3249
7. Jones, H. (2023, December 29). Prisons must focus on rehabilitation to cut reoffending, says chief inspector. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67837739
8. Juda, E. (2022, November 30). The Challenges of Prisoner Re-Entry into Society | Simmons Online. SC-UMT. https://online.simmons.edu/blog/prisoner-reentry/
9. Kashem, M. B. (1996). Jails in Bangladesh. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 20(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.1996.9678560
10. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2006). Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674019935
11. Lebbie, K. H. (2021). An Examination of the Relationship between Rehabilitation and Recidivism. The Repository at St. Cloud State. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cjs_etds/16/
12. Legislative Analyst’s Office [LAO]. (2017). Improving In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs. In Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3720
13. Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (2001). Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. In Urban Institute (Vol. 3). https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/71306/410213_reentry.PDF
14. Maguire, M., & Nolan, J. (2012). Accommodation and related services for ex-prisoners. In Willan eBooks (pp. 158–187). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843925477-15
15. Muntingh, L. (2002). Tackling Recidivism: What is needed for successful offender reintegration. Sabinet African Journals, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC111548
16. Naser, R. L., & La Vigne, N. G. (2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1300/j076v43n01_05
17. Osayi, K. K. (2023). Reintegration challenges of discharged prisoners in Awka South Local government area, Anambra State. https://journals.aphriapub.com/index.php/SS/article/view/2430
18. Petersilia, Joan, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, Studies in Crime and Public Policy(New York, 2009; online edn, Oxford Academic, 24 May 2012), https://doi.org/ 10.1093/acpr of: oso/9780195160864.001.0001
19. Pittaro, Dr. M. (2020, September 28). Why ex-prisoners struggle to successfully reintegrate into society. Corrections1. https://www.corrections1.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/why-ex-prisoners-struggle -to-successfully-reintegrate-into-society-ZYTsN5uC2BdRwRXT/
20. Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: what works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49(3), 360–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703049003002
21. Sharmin, S., Banarjee, S., & Parvez, M. (2021). Reintegration of the Released Prisoners into the Community: A Study in Tangail District. PSC JOURNAL.
22. Shinkfield, A. J., & Graffam, J. (2009). Community reintegration of Ex-Prisoners. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624×07309757
23. Solomon, A. L., Johnson, K. D., Travis, J., & McBride, E. C. (2004). From Prison to Work the Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry. In Urban Institute. Urban Inatitute. https://webarchive.urban.org/publications/411097.html
24. Travis, J. (2000). But they all come back: Rethinking prisoner reentry. In U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181413.pdf
25. Travis, J., Mcbride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2006). Families left behind: the hidden costs of incarceration and reentry [Dataset]. In Psyc EXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e688572011-001
26. Visher, C., Vigne, N. L., & Travis, J. (2004). Returning Home Study: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. In Urban Institute. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/42841/410974-Returning-Home-Understanding-the-Challenges-of-Prisoner-Reentry.PDF
27. Visher, C., Yahner, J., & Vigne, N. L. (2010). Life after Prison: Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/life-after-prison-tracking-experiences-male-prisoners-returning-chicago-cleveland-and-houston
28. Western, B., Kling, J. R., & Weiman, D. F. (2001). The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047003007
29. Willis, M. (2018). Supported housing for prisoners returning to the community: A review of the literature. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti204747
30. Yesmen, N., & Mou, R. A. (2022b). Recidivism of Prisoners in Bangladesh: Trends and Causes. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 5(2), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2022.v05i02.006