Civic Engagement Activities Among Formerly Incarcerated Persons: Implications for Advocacy Recruitment and Approach

Background: Little is known about the civic engagement activities of formerly incarcerated persons (FIPs) or their views on specific activities such as community organizing. Further, little is known about barriers to participation, particularly during probation or parole when common, low risk activities (e.g., signing petitions) can become high risk activities preventing initial and ongoing participation. This exploratory study seeks to fill these gaps and others (e.g., FIP familiarity with civic engagement terms and issue areas, FIP peer group activity, and FIP advocacy capacity).

FIPs face many barriers to civic participation. Curfew, geographic, and contact restrictions may prevent participation. Issues related to substance abuse, mental health, and current involvement in illegal activities may also limit participation and productivity during in-person meetings. Family and work life may be too precarious to engage in civic activities. Advocates seeking into include FIPs may find recruitment to be too resource intensive and traditional tactics largely unsuccessful. Historically, disenfranchised groups have considered common civic engagement activities risky and often times fear re-arrest.

Methods: Survey respondents (n=47) were recruited from two nonprofit service organizations and street outreach. The survey included 44 questions with tailored and validated measures assessing civic engagement activities, which in this study includes voting, community organizing, and formal participation in community development or political/social action activities. Eligible participants were 18 years or older and had at least one full night in jail, state or federal prison. The majority of respondents were African American males (29, 62%). Respondents had been arrested either as a juvenile or an adult an average of 13.42 times (SD = 27.60).

Results: 1 in 4 of survey respondents reported belonging to a group or association that worked on political or social action. 43% reported that members in their social networks had never asked them to join a political or social action. 68% had never been invited by a paid organizer or canvasser to participate in any action. 12.8% reported that their criminal background or incarceration history negatively impacted their involvement with organizations that work on political or social issues and 31.9% reported that their criminal background or incarceration history negatively impacted their involvement in political and social issues. Boycotts or strikes, protests, marches, rallies, or demonstrations were considered the most "risky" given their FIP status. Being "asked/invited to participate" and "getting paid"(both 36.2%) were the top reasons selected that would encourage participation in political and social action. However, the reported likelihood of carrying out typical activities associated with community organizing ranged from "somewhat unlikely" to "uncertain."

Conclusions and Implications: Implications for campaign development (including messaging, outreach, and targeting), organizing models, organizational capacity building, and FIP advocacy training are explored. Initial versus continued participation are discussed in terms of high/low risk activity, creating safe places to organize and meet, building capacity for ongoing civic engagement, and integrating FIPs into mainstream advocacy organizations. The FIP-ally relationship is also discussed from an organizational advocacy capacity context.