Ex-Offender Reintegration: Public Policy and Mass Incarceration

Public Administration Paradigms and the Role of Simon's Framework

Although the paradigms of public administration have undergone considerable scrutiny and some evolution — particularly over the past several decades — there is merit in considering the historical paradigms of public administration as an academic and scientific discipline. Paradigm 2, The Principles of Administration (circa 1927–1937), serves as the springboard for this discussion. In Henry's words, "Thus the focus of the field — its essential expertise in the form of administrative principles — waxed [in the 1930s and early 1940s], while no one thought seriously about its focus. Indeed the locus of public administration was everywhere because principles were principles and administration was administration" (Henry, 1975, p. 380).

By the time a decade had passed, Herbert Simon had eschewed the traditional foundations of public administration and presented his own version of a new paradigm for the discipline. Simon seized on the idea that "there ought to be two kinds of public administrations working in harmony and reciprocal intellectual stimulation" (Henry, 1975, p. 381). One group of scholars would concern themselves with "a pure science of administration" informed by social psychology. A second and larger group of scholars would focus on "prescribing for public policy" (Simon cited in Henry, 1975, p. 381).

In one fell swoop, by marrying these two organically reinforcing approaches — "a pure science of administration" and "prescribing for public policy" — Simon resurrected the then-unfashionable and neglected field of political economy. "There does not appear to be any reason why these two developments in the field of public administration should not go side-by-side, for they in no way conflict or contradict" (Simon cited in Henry, 1975, p. 381).

The idea that social psychology could be used to explain and inform administrative behavior was "foreign and discomfiting" to scholars in both public administration and political science. After all, if public administration were to be a pure science, it would ostensibly be value-free. To public administrators, this was like being untethered in outer space. They feared they were plummeting into an engineering mentality and that they would be severed from "their richest sources of inquiry: normative political theory, the concept of public interest, and the entire spectrum of human values" (Henry, 1975, p. 381).

Moreover, the linkage to political theory was also an association with public policymaking — the black box of public administration (Henry, 1975). It was sufficient, according to the public administration scholars of the day, to frame the inputs and outputs of public policymaking within the parent discipline of political science (Henry, 1975). One did not really need to resort to social psychology to inform public administration when political science was adequately concerned with the dynamics originating with the demos — the polity or society — that were the catalysts for social and political change (Henry, 1975).

Public Policy Approaches and Their Application to Ex-Offender Reintegration

Public policy enables the study and characterization of the transactions between policymakers, public administrators, and citizens and society (Hughes, 2003). Economists tend to use the term "public policy" to refer to economic models and methods used in government (Hughes, 2003). Usage has broadened, however, and two approaches to public policy are commonly differentiated: policy analysis and political public policy (Hughes, 2003). Those who practice policy analysis have tended to uphold and commit to traditional models that rely on mathematical modeling and abstract statistics to inform decision-making and policy development (Hughes, 2003). Theorists interested in political public policy tend to focus on the outcomes or results of policy implementation (Hughes, 2003) — for example, the results of public policy enacted through political influence and activity, particularly in areas such as education, environment, health, and welfare. Statistical methods and models are of less interest than outcomes, and from this one can deduce a general dissatisfaction from the polity with an exaggerated concern for administrative process (Hughes, 2003). Public policy is central to the literature review that follows, which is situated in the study of the post-incarceration status of ex-felons in community settings.

Mass Incarceration, Invisible Men, and Racial Data Distortion

The work of sociologist Becky Pettit leads this literature review because it provides a backdrop against which all other literature on the reintegration of ex-felons must be considered. In Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress, Pettit delineates evidence showing that as millions of Black men have disappeared into U.S. penal systems, their representative numbers have all but vanished from the statistics collected by lawmakers, social institutions, and federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau. Consideration of the inmate population appears only in criminal justice research or social science studies related to crime (Pettit, 2012). Yet, at some point in their lives, roughly 70 percent of young Black men will be imprisoned. Indeed, for those African American men who have not earned high school diplomas, being incarcerated is a more common experience than employment (Pettit, 2012). With correctional budgets focused on inmate monitoring and housing, job training and rehabilitation are, comparatively, given short shrift (Pettit, 2012). As members of this teeming population of invisible men exit prisons, they are fundamentally ill-equipped and unprepared to participate in society upon release (Pettit, 2012).

Reports of the social gains of the post-Civil Rights era are distorted by the approaches used for data collection and analysis (Pettit, 2012). Most national studies of economic, political, and social conditions do not include prison inmates in their demographic bases (Pettit, 2012). This massive misrepresentation of data has effectively concealed decades of racial inequality overwhelmingly skewed toward poor Black men with low educational attainment (Pettit, 2012). The impact of mass incarceration of poor Black Americans has been to undermine fair political representation and the equitable allocation of public resources. The widespread and enduring disadvantage of African Americans is concealed from public view and statistical consideration. An inability to fund studies examining the family backgrounds and communities from which ex-inmates come — and, importantly, what happens to them after incarceration — further deprives the children of inmates by excusing the failure to remedy the conditions that contributed to the policy problem in the first place.

Conclusion: Collaborative Solutions for Ex-Offender Reentry

Although Thompson is an attorney, he exemplifies the growing interest in public administration in improving the efficiency and institutional competence of reentry courts and reintegration programs. Thompson (2004) recommends a more evolved role for public defender offices, enabling a more integrative approach to representing ex-offenders in reentry matters. Taking a public policy view, Thompson (2004) suggests that law schools offer clinical opportunities for students in which they can develop non-traditional and creative solutions for ex-offender representation.

In the same way that potential employers are partnering with government agencies and nonprofit and faith-based organizations, Thompson (2004) argues that communities must collaborate with lawyers in order to provide the resources necessary for successful reintegration programs. This collaborative vision aligns with broader scholarship on prisoner reentry that emphasizes coordinated, multi-sector approaches as essential to reducing recidivism and restoring productive citizenship for formerly incarcerated individuals.