Reintegration experiences in a sample of Israeli parolees on completion of their term of supervision: A qualitative study

Introduction

Many released prisoners encounter difficulties after their release from prison that impede the reintegration process. Overcoming such difficulties depends on the individual’s abilities, motivation and mental state, as well as the social environment’s willingness to assist in the reintegration process (McNeill, 2016), the rehabilitative and therapeutic milieu, and the level of supervision and guidance provided (Seiter and Kadela, 2003; Visher and Travis, 2011).

Rehabilitation is a specific process intended to enable participants to resume and practice a normative and healthy lifestyle and activities. In the penological literature, this concept is further developed into stages of reentry and reintegration, the latter referring to the long process of reintegrating into normative society as a law-abiding citizen, desisting from crime (LeBel et al., 2008; Maruna, 2001; Sampson and Laub, 2003) and exhibiting full recovery (White and Kurtz, 2005).

Specifically, rehabilitation, reentry, reintegration, and desistance from crime are viewed as related concepts that describe an evolving process. Rehabilitation describes the initial process that targets the needs of the offender as identified by the intake process, and will vary in depth and duration of intervention until the point of reentry (usually, the date of release back into the community). A successful rehabilitative intervention while incarcerated may culminate in early reentry followed by the reintegration process, a process of assimilation that will vary in duration depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual and the conditions of their release (Gideon and Sung, 2011; Travis, 2005). Successful reintegration means that the individual refrains from criminal involvement while assuming normative roles in society that symbolize their desistance from crime. Such desistance involves breaking away from old connections while making good (Maruna, 2001).

One theoretical model aimed at rehabilitating offenders and reducing their recidivism is the good lives model (GLM; Ward and Stewart, 2003). According to this model, rehabilitation of offenders should focus on those means that will enable them to better live their lives while improving their well-being and quality of life, which in turn will reduce their risk of recidivism (see Ward and Maruna, 2007). Accordingly, setting modest and attainable goals, such as securing a job, taking up new hobbies, and being exposed to new experiences, will assist the individual in moving forward and building new life, rather than simply desisting and “floating” (Healy, 2014; Weaver, 2013, 2015).

The GLM approach to rehabilitation sees desistance from crime as a by-product of major positive life events experienced by the individual offender (Cullen, 2012; Laub et al., 2006). For example, Laub and Sampson (1993), in their age-graded theory, argue that marriage, stable and meaningful employment, and military service are key turning points that lead to desistance from crime (Doherty, 2006). Such explanations were further developed into desistance theories (Bersani and Doherty, 2018; Broidy and Cauffman, 2017; LeBel et al., 2008; Maruna, 2001; Segev, 2018) that describe a gradual process that is completed when criminality is no longer manifested.

Specifically, desistance theories distinguish between primary desistance (temporary desistance from delinquent and criminal behavior) and secondary desistance (active participation in intervention programs that communicate a normative lifestyle). Such theories assume that it is essential to examine the overall lifestyle of the individual after the intervention program is completed (Rhine et al., 2017). They also assume that successful transition from primary to secondary desistance (Maruna and Farrall, 2004) does not guarantee tertiary (final) desistance, which includes broad social acknowledgment of change (McNeill, 2016).

The initial stage in desistance from crime is hope (Farrall et al., 2014), this being a time when the aims of the individual undergoing rehabilitation are still unclear and unconsolidated; he is preoccupied principally by what he does not want to do (e.g. return to prison, disappoint those around him). Later, as the rehabilitation process advances, and with the help of support agents, expectations and goals regarding the future begin to take shape (Farrall and Calverley, 2006). The more these are fulfilled, the more hope increases and becomes integral to the rehabilitation process (Gålnander, 2020). In contrast, a failure to achieve aims (the “pains of desistance”) can drive the individual to despair (Nugent and Schinkel, 2016).

The aim of this study is to gain insight into the experiences of individuals who have participated in the supervision and employment guidance programs operated by the Israeli Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority (IPRA). This will further our understanding of their rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration process, from their time of incarceration up to and beyond completion of mandatory supervision. Such insight will facilitate the identification of factors that may have a positive effect on that process and lead these individuals to a life free from crime.

The Israeli Prisoners’ Rehabilitation and Community Supervision Program

Unlike many rehabilitation programs throughout the world, those geared toward paroled prisoners in Israel are not operated by volunteer agencies acting in varying degrees of coordination, such as the Second Chance Act in several US states (D’Amico and Kim, 2018). Instead, they have been mandated by law since 1983 (The Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority Act, 5743-1983, 1983) with agencies spread across the country. Prisoners who wish to earn early release on parole apply to the parole board after serving approximately two-thirds of their sentence. Among many things considered by the board when making their decisions are risk of recidivism, behavioral infractions during the period of imprisonment, active participation in prison intervention programs, such as educational, professional, substance abuse, anger management, and other therapeutic and rehabilitative programs. This has led some to argue that prisoners seeking parole are driven by external motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2008) to take part in the rehabilitation programs offered. Nevertheless, their participation and subsequent release on parole requires them to remain under the supervision of the IPRA throughout the set period (i.e. the remaining one-third of the original sentence) while also being supervised in the community (e.g. in a seamless system of care).

From 2004 to 2013, conditional parole was granted to about 36% of sentenced offenders in Israeli prisons each year (Timor and Nagar, 2014). The vast majority of paroled offenders were mandated to participate in a rehabilitation program organized by the IPRA and to remain under its supervision.

The IPRA operates in a dual capacity as a supervising and reintegration agency that assists released prisoners, regardless of their religious and ethnic affiliation, to reassimilate into the normative community. The IPRA program combines supervision and treatment with a strong emphasis on employment integration. IPRA counselors, who are responsible for the therapeutic aspects of the programs, meet with eligible prisoners during their incarceration periods for interviews, assessment and evaluation of various reports and intake summaries. Eligible prisoners are those who express interest, motivation, and commitment to the IPRA program; they are required to understand, accept, and adhere to the conditions set by the counselors assigned to them. Thus, prisoners who participate in the program do so voluntarily, with the full understanding that the reduction of their prison sentence is dependent on that participation.

A tailored therapeutic program for the individual is then presented to the parole board for approval. Once this review is completed and approved, the prisoner is released conditionally (i.e. on license) and subject to the supervision of the IPRA, which is mandated to provide quarterly progress reports to the parole board.

Successful reintegration into the normative community requires the individual to change his thought processes, social perceptions, and behavior (Shoham and Timor, 2014). Such change is essential when dealing with convicted criminals, who are accustomed to non-normative ways of thinking and manifest non-normative behavior (Ward and Maruna, 2007). Accordingly, as part of the conditions of release, an ex-prisoner is expected to participate in an individually tailored psychological treatment program corresponding to the conviction. In many cases, the individual is mandated to attend at least two weekly therapeutic sessions, one of individual treatment and one of group therapy, each lasting 50 minutes.

The supervisory and rehabilitative program is prepared by treatment staff and employment counselors. As mentioned earlier, entry into the program is voluntary and requires acceptance of the treatment and supervision protocol. In addition, participants are required to be drug-free for a period of at least 6 months prior to release (Peled-Laskov et al., 2019).

The program was developed in response to difficulties experienced by many released prisoners when seeking meaningful employment, due to factors including stigma, poor prior employment background, limited skills, low wages, and unrealistic expectations for rapid promotion (Davis et al., 2014; Lucken and Ponte, 2008; Pager et al., 2009; Seiter and Kadela, 2003). In the development of the program, securing meaningful employment was regarded as a crucial step in rehabilitation, reintegration, and assimilation (Duwe, 2015; Gillis and Nafekh, 2005; Laub and Sampson, 1993). Thus, the IPRA established a counseling initiative run by employment counselors who advise and supervise ex-prisoners while providing them with the necessary support for finding and maintaining employment (Efodi, 2014). Such a system is essential if ex-prisoners are to assimilate into the workforce and persevere in their employment (Peled-Laskov and Bialer, 2013).

The current study

Evaluating employment reintegration and recidivism of ex-prisoner found positive outcomes related to successful reintegration among ex-prisoners who were under IPRA supervision and who participated in its employment programs (Peled-Laskov et al., 2019). Specifically, positive outcomes were identified regarding reintegration, length of reported employment, higher overall average income and lower imprisonment rates. Yet the study failed to focus on actual subjective views and experiences of the prisoners, missing the opportunity to gain important insights into the actual experiences during the program to assess its strength and weaknesses. The present study aims to fill this gap by examining the subjective perceptions and experiences of ex-prisoners on their journey from incarceration through reentry and reintegration while participating in an IPRA supervision, treatment, and employment intervention. It thereby seeks to identify influences that may have a constructive effect on the reintegration process and help lead the participants to a normative life.

In addition, the study identifies factors that contributed to, or impeded, the rehabilitation and reintegration process, as well as the level of satisfaction obtained from employment. The latter consideration is of great importance, as many ex-prisoners reintegrate into the least skilled sectors of employment as laborers (Ramakers et al., 2016). Unlike other recent studies (e.g. Farrall et al., 2014; Gålnander, 2020; Nugent and Schinkel, 2016), the present research focuses on prisoners’ perceptions regarding the course they have pursued rather than on the process of desistance per se.

Methodology

Findings

Four main themes emerged, providing a broadly chronological view of the participants’ perceptions and expectations: (a) reentry and post-release challenges; (b) psychological treatment provided by the IPRA; (c) employment during supervision; and (d) future expectations.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to gain insight into the experiences of individuals who participated in the supervision and employment guidance programs operated by the IPRA, furthering our understanding of their prison–reentry–reintegration journey up to the completion of the period of mandatory supervision. It sought to identify factors that may have a positive effect on the reintegration process and help the participants to desist from crime.

Accordingly, this qualitative study presents the attitudes and experiences of prisoners who were under the supervision of the IPRA. Notable are the favorable perceptions of the interviewees with respect to the programs and their expectations for the future, particularly regarding the effectiveness of the rehabilitation program. These findings are in line with previous research (Peled-Laskov and Bialer, 2013; Peled-Laskov et al., 2019) and with the statistical data available from the IPRA as to the low rate of recidivism (20%) among prisoners who have completed the program (Timor and Nagar, 2014).

The in-depth interviews also contribute to existing knowledge by helping to identify important factors that may be strongly related to desistance and successful reintegration, providing insight into these factors as experienced by the interviewees in our sample. The findings from the interviews confirm the damaging effects of imprisonment on relationships with spouses and children, health and mental health (e.g. Brinkley-Rubinstein, 2013; Corzine-McMullan, 2011; Erlyana et al., 2014), economic status, and relationships with friends and social relations. These issues are well documented in the literature and have been attributed to the deprivation/endogenous model associated with being imprisoned (Einat, 2005), as well as to the pains of desistance (Nugent and Schinkel, 2016) regarding isolation and goal failure, which often leads to hopelessness and a diminished life.

While most participants in the present study were able to surmount these obstacles with support from family and friends, others required further care from formal support systems, including the IPRA. During the rehabilitation process, it is therefore important that such sources target the difficulties that may impede reintegration, and that they assist the individual in addressing those issues.

In the interviews, the participants’ experiences with the IPRA were salient, with a majority reporting an overall positive experience. The findings provide evidence in support of the usefulness of both individual and group therapy, provided by IPRA counselors, as an overall contribution to the adoption of optimistic views and realistic life goals aligned with a normative lifestyle. Both therapeutic modalities were found to support the GLM (Ward and Maruna, 2007), enabling participants to gain those desired “goods” associated with positive and successful reintegration and assimilation into normative society upon release.

Aside from supervision and the ability to learn from other participants, group therapy serves another latent function that is essential to the rehabilitation and reintegration process: peer support. It was clear from the interviews that the participants viewed therapy meetings as an opportunity to meet and talk with friends. Thus, the combination of functions served by group therapy makes it an essential social prop or platform, and it satisfies a basic need in the process of rehabilitation (Graffam and Shinkfield, 2011). However, the interviewees who had been convicted of white-collar crimes did not appear to experience those benefits of group therapy, and they tended to view it as a waste of their time. It is possible that white-collar offenders view themselves differently from other offenders and therefore lack the “sense of affiliation” that would enable them to experience the meetings in a positive way. This is reflected in the fact that the white-collar interviewees in our sample enjoyed stronger social support and social networks compared with those convicted of other crimes.

Some participants compared the effectiveness of therapy in prison with that provided by the IPRA, claiming, for example, that the “therapeutic sessions were very good and effective. They both changed me a lot, way more than prison did.” Apart from the clear expression of the view that the therapeutic sessions operated by the IPRA are important and help to bring about change, there appears to be an expectation on the part of the prisoners (and shared by professionals) that the very fact of imprisonment will achieve the aim of rehabilitation (Timor, 2011). The gap in expectations regarding the effectiveness of prison-based therapy compared with that provided by the IPRA can be attributed to the prison environment. While prisoners tend to expect their therapy during incarceration to result in profound behavioral changes, the reality is different. Prison is not a suitable environment for rehabilitation (Ortmann, 2000), and efforts made to develop rehabilitation programs for incarcerated individuals often have few or no favorable outcomes (Bullock and Bunce, 2020). This gap can be attributed in part to the importation model; offenders bring their criminal behavior and approach from the outside into the prison, where they use it for survival purposes. Another explanation can be found in Goffman’s (1961) concept of the “total institution” having an adverse effect on rehabilitation, as exemplified in the distance and hostility that develop between prison inmates and staff or professional personnel. In this connection, it should be noted that many therapists in prison wear a uniform, which identifies them more closely with the penal system than with rehabilitative efforts.

Participants in the current study reported positive experiences with their assigned therapists and mentioned highly supportive and constructive relationships characterized by mutual trust and respect. Many viewed their therapists as well-trained professionals. From the interviews, it seems that the mandatory aspect of participation in treatment, as part of the sentence and conditions of early release, did not play a central part in the treatment; treatment staff did not “play the mandatory participation card” that could have clouded the relationship between therapist and client (Etgar, 1999).

Employment is a key factor in successful reintegration after release from prison (Gillis and Nafekh, 2005) and in crime desistance. Accordingly, the IPRA attempts to integrate released prisoners almost immediately into the labor market by providing them with regular and meaningful employment that enables them to interact with other employees who have no prior criminal record. In this environment, the individual is under daily supervision, which makes compliance with the assigned conditions of release very likely. This positive work environment enables the individual to acquire personal and social assets (such as a steady and fair income, experience in the workforce, compliance with employer demands, and new and normative social connections) that improve self-esteem and boost social image (Bouffard et al., 2000). The desire to maintain and grow such gains further propels the desire to succeed in the program. Success in employment is one of the “goods” mentioned in the GLM as an essential component in successful rehabilitation (Ward and Maruna, 2007).

Although finding employment was difficult for most of the participants, much-needed assistance was received from prior personal contacts, and in many cases, this resulted in unskilled jobs that paid low wages. In the absence of such contacts, the engaged and professional approach of the IPRA employment counselors was crucial to success. Regardless of who helped, most participants interviewed for this study reported positive experiences with their employers, who often treated them fairly, respectfully and without bias, as in previous studies (Pager et al., 2009).

The interviews indicate that most of the participants did not need the assistance of the IPRA employment counselors to find a job; as stated earlier, most of them relied on prior contacts, family, and friends. This finding indicates that the presence of a strong informal support network reduces the need for formal support, such as that provided by IPRA counselors. It may also provide an indication of the actual ability of certain ex-prisoners to reintegrate successfully when they have a strong informal support network of friends and family.

Even in the presence of these support systems, barriers to meaningful employment remained. In particular, some participants reported hesitation in divulging their past to potential employers. Although such reporting was mandatory (because treatment sessions take place during normal business hours and participation is obligatory), in many cases, they felt that it jeopardized their chances of securing the desired employment.

Notably, the interviewees seemed to view the formal control assigned to them by the conditions of their parole as a barrier to their personal reform. Contemporary desistance research has discussed how desisters manage the stigma that comes with a previous deviant lifestyle (Maruna, 2001). Specifically, there is evidence that “label negotiation” (Schur, 1971, 1979) and “ban-the-box” policies (Pager, 2008, 2018) are effective methods of reducing, and even neutralizing, stigmatization. Desistance theory (Bersani and Doherty, 2018; Broidy and Cauffman, 2017; LeBel et al., 2008; Maruna, 2001; Segev, 2018) holds that successful transition from primary to secondary desistance does not guarantee tertiary or final desistance, as the latter requires a broad social acknowledgment of change that is necessary for long-term results (McNeill, 2016). Accordingly, social acceptance is an essential stage in achieving successful desistance, and anything that jeopardizes it should be avoided. This includes negative credentials (Pager, 2018) that may impede or exclude released prisoners from participating in the normative labor market and successfully reintegrating into normative society.

Since the formal educational level of the sample varied greatly (from 9 to 17 years, with some holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees), it is reasonable to assume that labor market attachment will vary accordingly. Those with higher levels of education are likely to benefit from stronger hard skills and more stable and “healthy” support networks, and thus tend to have higher expectations of securing meaningful jobs.

Examining the employment component of the IPRA program from the viewpoint of participants who completed the program exposes a weakness that is well documented in the literature. Although the program is effective and contributes to the rehabilitation and integration of offenders upon their release, it seems to lack three main components: (1) proper vocational training that will lead to meaningful employment; (2) integration into meaningful jobs; and (3) a seamless transition from prison-based vocational training and employment to employment upon release in the community (see, for example, Cook et al., 2015). Moreover, the fact that the interviewees seem to view the supervision as an impediment to their employment reintegration and personal reform should be acknowledged and addressed by IPRA counselors. For example, mandatory therapeutic and reporting meetings could be conducted more flexibly to enable the parolee to navigate and comply with the supervision requirements without the potential harm caused to their employment reintegration by strict or unreasonable reporting hours. Meetings could be scheduled to reflect the working hours and shifts of the parolee, and adjusted according to their individual risk level.

Overall, evaluation of the experiences shared by the participants in this study alongside findings from other relevant studies (Bouffard et al., 2000; Friedmann et al., 2012) makes it clear that individual and group therapy should be considered as a top priority. More emphasis during therapy sessions should be given to strengthening existing normative social networks. These networks have the potential to draw people away from stigma and help them to rejoin normative society, as suggested by the concept of reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989), while minimizing the potential harm of defiance due to disintegrative shaming (Bouffard and Piquero, 2010; Sherman, 1993). Nevertheless, it seems that the IPRA program already provides an effective therapeutic balance while fulfilling employment needs. The connection between the supervision agents and the clients, and the process of “normalizing” and neutralizing the stigma of criminal conviction while focusing on the needs of the offender, seems to be of great importance.

The IPRA rehabilitation program triggers an important component of external motivation (Valleran, 1997) based on the desire of many prisoners to earn early release (i.e. parole). It is because of this incentive that many are willing to commit to all the components and stages of the program, including intensive supervision by both the IPRA and the parole board. Fear of being returned to prison for non-compliance also drives their motivation to work hard and to comply with the demands of the program (Maguire and Raynor, 2006; Marklund and Holmberg, 2009). It seems that this external motivation triggers internal motivation, as individuals advance through the program successfully and enjoy the benefits of the changes to their lives (Gideon, 2010; Ryan and Deci, 2008).

Future expectations should be recognized as an important factor in personality functioning and adjustment (Landau, 1975) and in future orientation and socialization, which can serve as an indicator of potential assimilation and reintegration after release from prison. Contrary to the assumptions of previous studies that have examined the future time perspectives of delinquents and criminals, participants in the current study reported very modest and realistic future expectations. Such findings are in line with recent desistance research (Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Gålnander, 2020). One possible explanation for this finding is a desire to avoid unrealistic expectations that will generate unwanted stress (Merton, 1968) and lead to the use of illegitimate means and further criminality. It is possible that participants, as a result of their previous failure to achieve unrealistic goals and subsequent imprisonment, internalized the consequences of their actions and gained valuable insight into the risks of repeating instrumental delinquent behavior. It can also be supposed that the individual and group sessions and conversations with IPRA counselors helped them to appreciate the safety and feasibility of pursuing more modest and attainable goals that minimize the risk of failure (Farrall and Calverley, 2006; Nugent and Schinkel, 2016), resulting in less stress and more security and thus improving their lifestyle (i.e. the GLM).

The results of this study provide insight, albeit limited, into the prison–community transition experiences of those convicted of white-collar crimes. This is of great importance, as these offenders tend to be underrepresented in the literature. Participants in this study who had been convicted of white-collar crimes tended to view the IPRA program favorably. In particular, these participants benefited from the individual treatment sessions, which were viewed as better suited to their status. For the majority of these participants, securing employment was not an issue, as they were able to benefit from previous contacts. It seems that the success of this particular group derives partly from the fact that the IPRA is unique in allowing the use of networks to secure meaningful employment as part of supervision. As far as we know, this approach has no counterparts internationally, and other prison and probation services are less likely to give such influence to probationers. However, it is recommended that future studies should include a substantial focus on the experiences and perceptions of those convicted of white-collar crimes.

In our estimation, the effectiveness of the program stems from the fact that almost all rehabilitation programs for released prisoners in Israel are under the unified sponsorship of a single professional agency—the IPRA—whose aim is to rehabilitate prisoners and prevent them returning to a life of crime. This fact appears to contribute substantially to the favorable attitude toward the IPRA on the part of paroled prisoners who participated in the programs, as well as the relative success in lowering the rate of recidivism (Peled-Laskov et al., 2019). The activities of the IPRA as a governmental agency are funded by the state and managed and run by professionals in the field of prisoner rehabilitation (social workers, criminologists, and educators). Its programs are developed by these professionals in coordinated efforts and focus explicitly on reducing prisoners’ predisposition to criminal activity. Moreover, its activities are subject to ongoing assessment and evaluation studies to foster evidence-based practices that will enable the development and application of the most innovative interventions.

The current study uses the qualitative method of interviews and has the associated limitations. Specifically, it focuses on a small group of Jewish, Hebrew-speaking male participants who had completed a term of community supervision and treatment operated by the IPRA (the agency that provided the sampling frame for this study). Moreover, because all the participants had completed their term of supervision and successfully reintegrated back into their communities, those who failed to complete the IPRA program are not represented here. Thus, the results provide limited insight into the multidimensional challenges faced by those who fail to comply with the IPRA’s conditions of supervision, treatment, and employment.

Although our sample does not represent many groups of offenders (e.g. non-Jewish offenders and those whose primary language is not Hebrew), few white-collar and highly educated offenders were examined in our study, and thus, the findings provide an interesting glimpse into the experiences of white-collar offenders and how they perceive and react to rehabilitation. Thus, our study provides a foundation for closer examination of the rehabilitation of white-collar criminals and more educated offenders who led a normative lifestyle prior to their offense. It also opens up avenues for future research. For example, future studies could usefully examine a more diverse group of ex-prisoners, including those who failed to complete the IPRA program or who were not subject to mandatory community supervision. Greater emphasis should be given to future time perspectives and expectations reported by ex-prisoners and those about to be released, as these may provide good indicators of desistance and successful reintegration (LeBel et al., 2008). Accordingly, it is recommended that future studies should combine qualitative and quantitative methods to yield more objective and empirical data on the frequencies of the perceptions and attitudes experienced and viewed by the offenders themselves, as an indication of the process of transition through rehabilitation, reentry, supervision, and reintegration. This will provide much-needed insight into the resources available to them that correlate with successful completion of supervision and reintegration.