Prisoners and the Formerly Incarcerated: Stigmatization and Reintegration Barriers

Successful reintegration of people released from prison remains a persistent challenge for criminal justice systems and for societies more broadly. Individuals with histories of incarceration face elevated risks of unemployment, housing instability, mental and physical health problems, and recidivism; scholars increasingly identify stigma—both enacted and internalized—as a central mechanism that helps explain these outcomes (Feingold, 2021; Pager, 2003). This article synthesizes theoretical formulations of stigma and empirical evidence on how stigma operates to produce structural and interpersonal barriers to reintegration. It argues that interventions must address stigma at multiple levels—individual, institutional, and cultural—to reduce inequality and improve public safety.

Theoretical framing: stigma as a social process

Erving Goffman’s foundational account conceptualizes stigma not merely as an attribute but as a relational process that transforms social identity. In Goffman’s words, a stigma is “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” and one that can reduce an individual “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (Goffman, 1963, p. 3). Goffman’s distinction between the discredited (stigma known to others) and the discreditable (stigma concealable but potentially revealed) remains analytically useful for understanding the dilemmas faced by people with criminal records: many experience a form of conditional visibility in which disclosure may trigger exclusion, while concealment itself imposes costs linked to stress and constrained social ties.

Building on Goffman, contemporary stigma researchers emphasize multiple mechanisms—labeling, stereotyping, social distance, and discrimination—that together produce material disadvantage (Link & Phelan, as summarized in later reviews). Importantly, stigma operates both directly (through discriminatory acts such as hiring rejection or housing denials) and indirectly (through institutional policies and cultural scripts that normalize exclusion). The literature on criminal-legal stigma, therefore, situates individual experiences within broader structural arrangements that regulate access to employment, housing, and services (Feingold, 2021).

Empirical evidence: stigma and concrete reintegration barriers

Employment

One of the clearest demonstrations of stigma’s labor-market effects comes from field experimental and audit studies showing that a criminal record significantly reduces callback rates for job applicants, even when applicants are otherwise identical in qualifications (Pager, 2003). Pager’s audit data revealed that employer responses to similarly qualified applicants varied markedly by criminal record status and by race—findings that illustrate how stigma interacts with other axes of disadvantage to shape opportunity. The labor-market exclusion documented by Pager helps explain both immediate income losses after release and longer-term trajectories of marginalization and recidivism.

Housing and social supports

Housing providers, landlords, and social networks also enact stigma through formal screening practices and informal judgments. Policies that permit or require denial of tenancy on the basis of conviction history translate stigma into structural homelessness risk. Beyond formal denials, the anticipation of rejection shapes behavior: people who expect discrimination may avoid asking for help or disclosing needs, further narrowing the scope of support available during a critical transition period (Feingold, 2021). Thus, housing instability is best understood not only as a resource deficit but as a predictable consequence of social processes that mark formerly incarcerated persons as untrustworthy or dangerous.

Health, identity, and internalized stigma

Stigma affects health both through resource pathways (reduced access to care, employment, and stable housing) and through psychosocial pathways (shame, social isolation, and diminished self-efficacy). Systematic review evidence indicates that research has documented associations between incarceration-related stigma and mental-health symptoms, but that many studies remain cross-sectional and heterogeneous in measurement (Feingold, 2021). Still, qualitative and quantitative work converges on the insight that internalized stigma—when people apply negative public assumptions to their own identities—can reduce engagement with services, undermine treatment adherence, and perpetuate cycles of marginalization.

Intersectionality and heterogeneity of stigma effects

Stigmatization is not experienced uniformly. Empirical work shows that the penalties associated with a criminal record are mediated by race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status (Pager, 2003; Feingold, 2021). Pager’s audit methodology demonstrated that racialized patterns of employer response amplify the labor-market penalty for Black men with records relative to white peers, indicating interactive effects between racial stigma and criminal-legal stigma. Similarly, women, older adults, and people with mental-health diagnoses report distinct stigma experiences that interact with institutional practices—calling for intersectional policy responses that attend to group-specific pathways of exclusion.

Policy and practice implications: multi-level strategies to reduce barriers

If stigma is both relational and structural, then anti-stigma interventions must operate at multiple levels.

1. Policy reforms to remove structural exclusions. Laws and administrative policies that automatically disqualify applicants for employment, licensing, housing, or public benefits on the basis of conviction history translate stigma into legalized exclusion. Targeted reforms—such as “ban-the-box” measures, restrictions on the use of conviction history in housing eligibility, and proportionality-based licensing review—can reduce institutionalized discrimination and create openings for reintegration. Evidence suggests that reducing formal barriers increases opportunities for employment and stability, although such reforms must be evaluated for unintended consequences (Feingold, 2021).

2. Employer- and landlord-focused interventions. Employer education, incentives for fair-chance hiring, and partnerships with reentry programs can reduce hesitation and correct misperceptions about risk. Pager’s findings imply that direct interventions aimed at employers—structured hiring pilots, subsidized placements, and performance-based demonstrations—may be particularly effective in countering stereotyped expectations that formerly incarcerated applicants will be unreliable or dangerous (Pager, 2003).

3. Clinical and community supports to address internalized stigma. Programs that explicitly address identity, self-stigma, and coping strategies—cognitive-behavioral interventions, peer-support models, and strengths-based case management—can improve service engagement and psychological well-being. Because internalized stigma undermines help-seeking, clinical interventions should be coupled with structural reforms so that improved self-efficacy translates into real opportunity.

4. Public narratives and cultural change. Stigma has a discursive dimension: media portrayals and public rhetoric shape the social imagination of who is dangerous or redeemable. Efforts to humanize formerly incarcerated people—through storytelling initiatives, restorative-justice forums, and community reintegration events—address the cultural presuppositions that undergird discriminatory practices. Feingold (2021) notes that reducing public stigma may be necessary to sustain institutional reforms and to change everyday interactions that constrain reintegration.

Limitations of the evidence and directions for research

The evidence base on incarceration-related stigma has grown, but important gaps remain. Feingold’s systematic review highlights the predominance of cross-sectional designs and uneven measurement of stigma mechanisms (Feingold, 2021). Longitudinal studies that track stigma exposure, internalization, and downstream socioeconomic and health outcomes would clarify causal pathways. Experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of policy reforms (e.g., staged ban-the-box rollouts) are likewise needed to assess whether structural changes meaningfully reduce discriminatory behavior and improve objective outcomes. Finally, more nuanced measurement that captures intersectional experiences and institutional contexts will improve the precision of both theory and policy design.

Conclusion

Stigmatization of people with criminal records is a multi-dimensional social process that translates into concrete reintegration barriers across employment, housing, health, and civic life. Classic theoretical insights about spoiled identity (Goffman, 1963) remain analytically potent when combined with contemporary empirical work that documents how stigma becomes structural (Pager, 2003) and how it shapes health and behavior (Feingold, 2021). Efforts to promote successful reintegration therefore require coordinated action across policy, organizational practice, clinical intervention, and public discourse. Addressing stigma as both an interpersonal and institutional phenomenon is essential for reducing post-release inequality and for advancing both social justice and public safety.

References

1. Feingold, Z. R. (2021). The stigma of incarceration experience: A systematic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(4), 550–569.
2. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–975.