Decomposition of the Role of Family in Reentry: Family Support,Tension,Gender,and Reentry Outcomes

Abstract

A vast body of reentry research has investigated the role of family in facilitating reentry success. However, it is largely unknown whether family can both be a source of support and conflict and if so, whether these impacts are gender-specific. This study explores the heterogeneous elements that family brings to the reintegration process. Findings suggest that released prisoners’ families can bring either crime-inhibitory or criminogenic influences depending on the familial environment. Support from family members protects respondents from criminal recidivism, while strained family relationships are a significant predictor for drug use. Moreover, the detrimental effect of family tension is gender-sensitive: Females released from prison suffer an amplified risk of reentry failure under family tension. Implications for correctional programming are discussed.

Keywords

reentry family support family tension gender

Introduction

In the current decarceration era, more than 600,000 inmates are released from prisons and reunite with their families each year (Markman et al., 2016). If we look at the gender composition of the reentry population, increasingly, this social group is composed of women. Women are the fastest-growing prison population and this population continues to expand at a rate higher than that of men (Carson, 2014; Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016; Pollock, 2013). Nationwide, women’s state prison populations grew 834% from 1988 to 2018— more than double the pace of the growth among men (Sawyer, 2018). Despite that state prison populations have demonstrated a continued decrease in the last 10 years (Kaeble et al., 2015), many states, while reducing their male prison populations, experience a noticeable increase in numbers of female prisoners (Sawyer, 2018). Michigan reduced the number of men incarcerated in its state prisons by 8% between 2009 and 2015 but incarcerated 30% more women over the same period. In Iowa and Washington, the reductions in the men’s prison populations were canceled out by growth in the women’s populations (Sawyer, 2018). Because female offenders generally receive shorter prison terms than their male counterparts (e.g., Spohn & Holleran, 2000; Steffensmeier & Painter-Davis, 2018; Visher, 1983; Warren et al., 2012), an increasing number of women are currently transitioning from prison to community to reintegrate back into society. Currently, 25% of the nearly four million probationers in the United States are female and more than 10% of the 854,000 parolees are female (Maruschak & Parks, 2012).

Reentry studies have highlighted a multitude of protective factors for successful reintegration, which include employment (Liu, 2020b; Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Uggen, 2000), mental health care (Mallik-Kane & Visher, 2008; Prendergast, 2009; Robbins et al., 2009), and avoidance of criminal peers (Boman & Mowen, 2017). However, none of these protective factors can rival the role of family—a particularly vital component for reentry success (Arditti & Few, 2006; Braman, 2004; Naser & La Vigne, 2006; Naser & Visher, 2006; Nelson et al., 1999; Shapiro & Schwartz, 2001; Visher & Courtney, 2007; Western, 2015). Family matters. Many released prisoners will reconnect (or attempt to reconnect) with parents, spouses, former spouses, and children (Liu et al., 2020d; Uggen et al., 2001). Family can provide much-needed prosocial ties (McKiernan et al., 2013; Naser & La Vigne, 2006; Phillips & Lindsay, 2011), help released prisoners re-establish themselves in society (Uggen et al., 2004), and offer a level of supervision and accountability for released prisoners (Western et al., 2015).

Although extant studies have delineated the theoretical mechanisms as well as empirical findings on the role of family in reentry (Abeling-Judge, 2020; Brank et al., 2008; Dillon et al., 2008; Zoutewelle-Terovan et al., 2014), there are unresolved issues. First, relatively less research attention has been made to quantify the heterogeneous effects of family support and tension simultaneously in predicting reentry outcomes. Past studies that examined the role of family in reentry used measures including marital status, parenthood status, family bonds, and family support (Boman & Mowen, 2017; Sampson et al., 2006; Taylor, 2015; Visher et al., 2019). It seems that these studies implied that researchers assumed family exerted benefit in reentry. Released prisoners all benefit from family; what differentiates one respondent from another is the magnitude of the benefit he or she receives. Less often researchers examined the possibility that family can undermine the reentry process, and that strained and abusive family relationships may aid in the risk of reentry failure (for an exception, see Liu & Visher, 2019; Mowen et al., 2019). Reintegrating into a family can be stressful for both the released prisoner and family members. As former prisoners experience challenges during reentry, family members struggle to make adjustments in life after the reunion. It is possible that when both released prisoners and family members adapt to these changes in life, tension and conflict emerge. How both supportive and strained types of family relationships affect reentry simultaneously remains an under-studied question.

Second, the majority of quantitative studies, primarily using male samples, illustrated the effects of family relationships or family support on reentry outcomes from a gender-neutral lens; but much remains to be learned about gendered pathways of reintegration under a certain type of familial influence. Qualitative studies of women’s reentry pathways elucidated the distinct set of challenges that female released prisoners face (Reisig et al., 2006; Salisbury et al., 2009; Taylor, 2015). Gender stereotypes influence our beliefs about the appropriate roles for women and men in our society (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 2004; Covington, 2002; Liu & Miller, 2019a). Females who are involved in the criminal justice system are stigmatized severely, as the socially constructed gender expectations for women dictate a female script to be passive, docile and compliant (Belknap, 2014; Owen & Bloom, 1995). The heavy stigma may decrease female released prisoners’ likelihood to receive social support from family members and friends. Also, women’s path of crime is closely associated with problematic familial environments and battering relationships (Belknap, 2014; Chesney-Lind & Irwin, 2013; Owen & Bloom, 1995; Taylor, 2015). Therefore, females who strive to reenter society may be more vulnerable to family tension and conflict than males. Thus, it is imperative to quantify the intersection of gender and family support and tension in reentry.

Using a dataset that followed serious and violent offenders over the initial months after their release from prison, we bring family tension and gender into the reentry picture and compare and contrast the heterogeneous nature of family influence across gender. Specifically, we test the effects of family support and tension in one model to assess their respective roles in reentry outcomes, represented by recidivism and post-release drug use. Furthermore, we quantify the gender-specific influence of family support and tension while control for confounding factors such as prior criminal records, drug use history, participation in correctional programs, and post-release neighborhood drug and crime issues.

Social Control and Relational Theoretical Perspectives on Family Relationship and Reentry

Family relationships are usually compared to “ties that bind” in criminological research in general (Herreros, 2015; Hirschi, 1969; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Wade, 2008) and reentry research in particular (see Berg & Huebner, 2011; Boman & Mowen, 2017). From the social control perspective, social bonding to a conventional lifestyle prevents people from offending. Attachment to family members and other close contacts is a large component of this bond (Hirschi, 1969; Sampson & Laub, 2003). Applying this perspective to the context of prisoner reentry, family bonds can help prevent released prisoners from assuming a criminal identity (Clark, 2001; Rocque et al., 2010), increase their stake in conformity (Sampson & Laub, 2003), help them take on a structured family life with daily routines (Martinez, 2006; Western, 2015), and provide various forms of support such as housing and financial assistance (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Mowen & Visher, 2016; Visher et al., 2004; Western, 2015).

A vast body of empirical studies dating back several decades illustrated the protective role of family in the reentry process (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Bersani & Doherty, 2013; Boman & Mowen, 2017; Canter, 1982; Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993; Savolainen, 2009; Wright et al., 2001). Anywhere from 40% to 80% of newly released offenders relied on their families immediately after release (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Nelson et al., 1999; Visher et al., 2004). About 84% of the former prisoners in one study were living with family 7 months out of prison, and 92% of them received cash assistance from their families (Visher et al., 2010). In a qualitative study of individuals returning to the Boston area, Western (2015) found that individuals who achieved a successful reintegration said that their families helped them to hold onto conventional values, discourage them from absconding from parole, and help them cultivate a stable daily routine after release.

While these studies painted a portrait of the importance of family, they rarely investigated the experiences of individuals who reunited with family but fell victim to unhealthy, even abusive, family relationships. The social control perspective addresses family as an institution that binds individuals to a law-abiding, conventional lifestyle. Nonetheless, this theoretical perspective encounters limitations when it comes to elucidating the emotional and psychological aspects of family relationships (Bloom et al., 2002; Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Covington, 2007; Goldner, 1991). Empirical studies from the social control perspective rarely assess both family support and the possibility that family can become a source of negative influence on the reentry process simultaneously. Therefore, it is interesting to draw insights from relational theory (Miller, 1976)—a theory that underscores the emotional and psychological aspect of family relationships—to complement the social control perspective.

As a theory illustrating relationships through the lens of gender, relational theory focuses on the gender differences women and men demonstrate toward relationship challenges (Miller, 1976). Jean Baker Miller (1976) maintained that a woman’s primary motivation is to build a sense of connection with others. Women develop a sense of self and self-worth when their actions arise out of, and lead back into, connections with others. Connection, not separation, is the guiding principle of growth for women. Many of the psychological problems of women can be traced to disconnections or violations within relationships, whether in families, with personal acquaintances, or in society at large.

In her book What Do We Mean by Relationships, Miller further elaborated her relational theory. A family can be either a source of positive or negative influence on reintegration after release from prison, depending on whether family relationships are tensioned, conflictual, neglecting or abusive. Mutual, empathic, and empowering relationships produce five psychological outcomes. Participants in these relationships gain (1) increased zest and vitality, (2) empowerment to act, (3) knowledge of self and others, (4) self-worth, and (5) a desire for more connection (Miller, 1986). These outcomes constitute psychological growth for women. Mutuality, empathy, and power with others are essential qualities of an environment that will foster growth in women. By contrast, non-mutual or abusive relationships are catalysts to a series of negative outcomes among women (Miller et al., 1997: (1) diminished zest or vitality, (2) disempowerment, (3) unclarity or confusion, (4) diminished self-worth, and (5) a turning away from relationships. Disconnection and violation, rather than growth-fostering relationships, characterize the past experiences of most women in the correctional system (Bowles et al., 2012; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001).

To apply the lens of relational theory to the reentry process, troubling family relationships are anticipated to take a heavier toll on female released prisoners. Compared to men, women exiting prison are subjected to stronger doubt, blame and even attack by family members for their failure to follow the passive, normative feminine script that society expects (Belknap, 2014; Bloom et al., 2003; Liu & Miller, 2019b). Furthermore, women attach more importance to inter-personal relationships; when there is tension and conflict in relationships, women are more easily affected and experience more severe repercussions (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Covington, 2003; Liu et al., 2019). Lastly, women are found more likely to endure and remain attached to partners and family members despite their neglect and abuse (Miller, 1998). For example, women are often first introduced to drugs by partners, and their partners later force or trick them into prostitution for money and drugs. Female offenders attempt to sever their criminal past; however, many of them remain attached to partners despite neglect and abuse (Liu et al., 2020c; Owen, 1998; Owen & Bloom, 1995; Pollock, 1998). When the nonempathic, unhealthy and toxic ties with family or romantic partners are left unaddressed, female prisoners may repeat their histories of loss, neglect, and abuse after release, which can increase their risk of reentry failure. These issues should be given full consideration when we try to understand the intersection of gender, family and reentry.

Switching to the discussion of men and women’s reactions to a troubled familial environment, researchers found that they have divergent behavioral manifestations. Men are more likely to turn their anger outward, while women turn it inward (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Liu et al., 2019). Society views women’s anger as inappropriate and a failure of self-control, while it views men’s anger as an affirmation of their masculinity (Adler, 1975; Messerschmidt, 1986; Rosenfield, 1980). Troubled by relationship conflicts, women tend to blame themselves; they worry addressing others’ faults may cause attenuation of valued relationships and comprise their femininity (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Self-blaming and the unraveling of self-esteem are related to escapist strategies such as drug use or eating disorders (De Coster & Cornell Zito, 2010; Liu & Miller, 2019b; Liu et al., 2019; Sharp et al., 2005). In contrast, men do not have as many concerns about jeopardizing relationships with others as do women, and they have a greater inclination to be confrontational and resort to expressive vindictive behaviors as a reaction to family tension (Adler, 1975; Messerschmidt, 1986). Therefore, even under the same level of family tension, female released prisoners may react differently from their male counterparts.

A handful of qualitative empirical studies illustrate the family dynamics that released prisoners experience during reentry. Some studies documented that some family members, due to past negative experiences, held serious reservations about the trustworthiness of a family member who was a former prisoner (Beach et al., 1996; Gideon, 2007; Laird, 2013). For example, in one study, Laird (2013) found that former prisoners’ family members assumed they would do something illegal again. The family members felt it was very likely that the whole family would be evicted from public housing when released prisoners slipped back to a criminal career. In another study, researchers found that some released prisoners were treated like the “black sheep” of the family when they came home (Breese et al., 2000). They also found that some prisoners’ families had moved away from the area during their incarceration and thus the relationship after release was weakened. Some respondents blamed their families for giving them up and ascribed their reincarceration to their families (Breese et al., 2000).

In quantitative studies, we found a paucity of studies that explored the negative side of family influences in the reentry process, and when it was examined, the intersection of family tension and gender was not explored. Focusing on male samples, one study found that conflictual family relationships undermined the reentry process for individuals by aiding in the risk of recidivism (Mowen & Boman, 2018). In another study, researchers found that family conflict was significantly associated with post-release drug use (Mowen & Visher, 2015). Focusing on the challenges experienced by both released prisoners and their family members during reentry, Liu and Visher (2019) found that more than 50% of family members experienced anxiety from life adaptations during this reunion, and 10% of released prisoners reported receiving no support from family. The aforementioned studies have added a lot to what we know; nevertheless, women’s and men’s experiences with strained family relationships as well as their implication for reentry outcomes are under-studied. In the current study, we examine the intersection of family support, tension and gender in the context of reentry. We use both recidivism and post-release drug use—a deviant behavioral reaction to relational problems— as proxies for reentry outcomes.

Methodology

Data

The current study used data from the evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) program. SVORI was a federally funded program that assisted states in developing studies to smooth the transition from prison to the community for ex-prisoners and create better reentry outcomes for men, women and youth (Lattimore & Steffey, 2009). Respondents were selected from 12 states receiving SVORI funding between July 2004 and November 2005. The SVORI evaluation included respondents who received SVORI programming and others who were selected as comparison subjects. In-person interviews with respondents were conducted 1 month before release from prison, and 3, 9, and 15 months after release from prison. These interviews occurred regardless of whether the respondent was re-incarcerated. The pre-release interview collected information about respondents’ demographic characteristics, past offending and drug use history, and domestic violence history before the current incarceration. In the post-release interviews, researchers collected information about reentry experiences, including respondents’ family support, family tension, recidivism and substance use during reentry (Lattimore & Visher, 2009).

For this study, we merged the male and female data sets from SVORI to create a mix-gender sample. The original sample size for males was 1,697 and 357 for females.

Panel studies inevitably suffer from attrition, and missing data within the SVORI sample has been well-documented (Lattimore & Steffey, 2009). A high percentage of respondents who participated in the first post-release study did not participate in the second and third interviews. To avoid losing information, we chose to use the data from both pre-release and the first post-release interviews, which gave us a larger sample size (N = 1187) than what we would have had if we used the third post-release interview (N = 229).

Dependent Variables

In this study, we used recidivism and post-release substance use to capture reentry outcomes. Both of the measures were binary with a value of one representing the occurrence of this reentry failure and zero otherwise. Recidivism was measured by whether respondents had been reincarcerated during the first 3 months after release. Post-release drug use was a measure created by SVORI researchers. This variable captured whether respondents ever used any one of these illicit drugs—marijuana, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, inhalants, sedatives, amphetamines, alcohol methadone, stimulants, or methadone—during the first 3 months after release. Respondents had a value of one if they used any of these drugs and zero otherwise.

Independent and Control Variables

Gender

Gender was a binary variable measured at the pre-release interview. It had a value of one to represent male and zero to represent female.

Family support

Family support was a latent factor constructed from four questions tapping into how respondents felt about support from family.¹ These four questions asked respondents using a four-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) whether or not they agreed with the following statements: (1) I feel close to my family; I have someone in my family (2) to talk to about myself or my problems, (3) to turn to for suggestions, and (4) who understands my problems. A higher response value indicated a higher degree of reported family support. CFA results confirmed the unidimensionality of the items; all of the items loaded relatively strongly onto the composite of family support (Appendix A). Standardized factor scores were used to create the value of this composite.

Family tension

This variable was measured by a single item asking about respondents’ agreement with the statement “I fight a lot with family members.” Responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree, to (4) strongly agree.

Neighborhood crime presence

Given that the neighborhood environment, especially crime and disorder issues, have been found to be an important risk factor for recidivism among former prisoners (e.g., Elo et al., 2009; Hipp, 2016; Liu, 2020a), we controlled for this neighborhood contextual effect on recidivism when assessing the role of family dynamics in reentry. This variable is measured by an item asking to what extent respondents agreed that it was hard to stay out of trouble in their neighborhoods. Responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree, to (4) strongly agree.

Neighborhood drug presence

Given that one of the reentry outcomes in the current analysis is post-release drug use, we included the severity of neighborhood drug problems as a covariate in our model. This variable is measured by an item asking to what extent respondents agree that drug selling was a major problem in their neighborhoods. Responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree, to (4) strongly agree.

We included several types of control variables. Living with children during reentry was a binary variable with the value of one representing living with children or stepchildren after release. Demographic variables included age, race (1 = white, 2 = black, 3 = other), and education attainment (1 = 6th grade or less, 2 = 7th to 9th grade, 3 = 10th to 11th grade, 4 = high school grad, 5 = GED, 6 = some college, 7 = college grad, 8 = post-grad study). Past drug use was a binary variable with a value of one indicating respondents used at least one type of illegal drug 30 days before the current incarceration. Prior incarcerations was a scale variable indicating the magnitude of past involvement with the criminal justice system (ranged from 0, 0 prior prison term, to 6, 6 prior prison terms or more). We also account for the effect of correctional programs. As the goal of SVORI was to examine outcomes associated with SVORI program participation, we included a binary covariate indicating if the respondent was a SVORI program participant (49%) in contrast to a nonparticipant.

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for all variables used in this analysis. The average age of the respondents was 29 years, and their prior incarcerations ranged from 0 to 6. About 51% of them were black while nearly 36% of them were white. Female respondents comprised 17% of the sample. SVORI data documented respondents’ family abuse and domestic violence victimization before their current incarceration. For males, 3% and 1% of them experienced domestic violence and sexual/physical abuse, respectively. In contrast, 14% of female respondents experienced domestic violence—more than three times the portion of males. Meanwhile, 14% of women experienced sexual/physical abuse—14 times that of males.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 1187).

Variables	Mean or percentage	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Dependent variables
Reincarceration	7%
Post-release drug use	45%
Independent variables
Gender (female)	17%
Family support	4.00	0.71	1.19	4.77
Family tension	2.50	0.80	1.23	4.94
Past drug use history	67%
Prior incarcerations	1.20	1.45	0.00	6.00
Neighborhood crime problem	1.76	0.84	1.00	4.00
Neighborhood drug problem	2.02	0.97	1.00	4.00
SVORI participant (yes)	49%
Living with children during reentry (yes)	17%
Control variables
Age	29.49	7.28	18.00	73.00
Education level	11.88	2.19	1.00	18.00
White	36%
Black	51%
Other	13%

Analytic Strategy

We used a two-step analysis to address our research questions. First, we ran two logistic regressions to examine the main effect of the predictors on reincarceration and post-release drug use. These two models illustrated how predictors such as gender, family dynamics, past drug use and incarceration histories affected the reentry outcomes independently. Second, we ran another two logistic regressions to examine the interplay of gender and family dynamics in predicting reentry outcomes. Results from these two models illustrated whether males and females reacted to family support and tension similarly during their transition from prison to the community.

To examine any collinearity issue, we generated a correlation matrix (Table 2). Not surprisingly, family tension appeared to be negatively correlated with family support. Respondents who experienced family tension were less likely to receive family support. This correlation was less than .43, indicating that these two concepts were not highly correlated and thus located at two distinct dimensions. To further examine the multicollinearity issue, we obtained the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores of the variables in the model. The highest value was 1.15, much lower than the generally accepted limit (Neter et al., 1996). Thus, multicollinearity was not a concern in this analysis.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix.

	Post-release drug use	Reincarceration	Age	Education level	SVORI participant	Past drug history	Prior incarcerations	Neighborhood crime problem	Neighborhood drug problem	Living with children	Family support	Family tension
Post-release drug use	1.00
Reincarceration	0.01	1.00
Age	−0.06	−0.08	1.00
Education level	−0.06	−0.07	0.05	1.00
SVORI participant	−0.10	−0.03	−0.04	0.04	1.00
Past drug history	0.25	0.01	−0.07	−0.01	−0.04	1.00
Prior incarcerations	0.12	0.07	0.32	−0.08	−0.07	0.10	1.00
Neighborhood crime problem	0.06	0.15	0.03	−0.20	−0.06	0.07	0.11	1.00
Neighborhood drug problem	0.13	0.11	0.01	−0.17	−0.04	0.06	0.13	0.62	1.00
Living with children	−0.01	−0.01	0.09	0.02	−0.03	−0.02	−0.03	−0.09	−0.06	1.00
Family support	−0.12	−0.11	0.06	0.03	0.06	0.00	−0.01	−0.19	−0.18	0.07	1.00
Family tension	0.14	0.12	−0.10	−0.08	−0.07	0.05	0.04	0.21	0.20	−0.07	−0.42	1.00

Results

Model 1 in Table 3 illustrates the results from the logistic regression that evaluated the effects of protective and risk factors on reincarceration in the first 3 month. We found that past criminal record and family support exhibited significant predictive power over reincarceration, yet in opposite directions. A one unit decrease in family support was associated with a .35 increase in the likelihood of reincarceration. The odds of reincarceration increased by 32% when respondents received a lower level of family support by one unit. Those with more past incarcerations also were more likely to experience reincarceration. Every count increase in prior incarcerations was associated with a 28% increase in the odds of reincarceration. We also found neighborhood crime problem was a significant predictor of reincarceration. Those who went back to disordered neighborhoods had a 70% higher risk of reincarceration compared to respondents whose neighborhood disorder level was one scale lower.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Results on Two Reentry Outcomes.

	Model 1: Reincarceration		Model 2: Post-release drug use		Model 3: Reincarceration		Model 3: Post-release drug use
Parameters	Estimate^a	OR	Estimate	OR	Estimate	OR	Estimate	OR
Age	−0.06***^b (0.02)	0.94	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99	−0.07*** (0.02)	0.94	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99
Gender (female)	−0.05 (0.17)	0.91	−0.20* (0.09)	0.67	1.78 (1.04)		−1.15 (0.76)
Race (Black)	−0.21 (0.17)	0.93	−0.02 (0.11)	0.80	−0.20 (0.17)	0.97	−0.03 (0.11)	0.78
Race (Hispanic)	0.36 (0.21)	1.65	−0.19 (0.15)	0.67	0.38 (0.21)	1.73	−0.20 (0.16)	0.66
Education level	−0.03 (0.06)	0.97	−0.07* (0.04)	0.94	−0.03 (0.06)	0.97	−0.07 (0.04)	0.94
SVORI participant (no)	0.04 (0.12)	1.08	0.20** (0.07)	1.48	0.03 (0.12)	1.06	0.20*** (0.07)	1.48
Prior incarcerations	0.25*** (0.09)	1.28			0.27*** (0.09)	1.31
Past drug history (yes)			0.54*** (0.08)	1.72			0.53*** (0.08)	1.70
Neighborhood crime problem	0.53*** (0.13)	1.70			0.53*** (0.13)	1.71
Neighborhood drug problem		0.72	0.21** (0.08)	1.23			0.21** (0.08)	1.24
Living with children	−0.16 (0.17)	0.71	−0.08 (0.10)	0.85	−0.16 (0.17)	0.72	−0.08 (0.10)	0.85
Family support	−0.35* (0.17)	1.32	−0.14 (0.12)	0.87	−0.53* (0.21)		−0.06 (0.14)
Family tension	0.28 (0.17)		0.27* (0.12)	1.32	0.08 (0.21)		0.44*** (0.15)
Family support*gender					−0.30 (0.21)		0.10 (0.14)
Family tension*gender					−0.33 (0.21)		0.29* (0.15)
Nagelkerke R²	.12		.13		.13		.14

Note.^aEntries are coefficients from logistic regression, with standard errors in parentheses.

^*p < .05, ^**p < .01, ^***p < .001.

When it comes to predicting drug use in the first 3 months after release, a different set of variables emerged as significant predictors (Model 2 in Table 3). Different from what we observed in Model 1, family tension instead of family support was more relevant when it comes to explaining post-release drug use. Those who experience family tension were more likely to use drugs. A one unit increase in family tension was associated with a 32% increase in the odds of drug use. In contrast, family bonds exhibited no significant effect on drug use. Gender, drug use before incarceration, and participation in SVORI program also demonstrated significant effects on this reentry outcome. Males demonstrated a significantly higher level of risk for post-release drug use; they had 50% higher risk than women to experience this reentry outcome (odds ratio of female: male = 0.67: 1.00; 1.00/.67 = 149%). Those with past drug use history were also more likely to fall victim to drug use after release; those who used drugs before the current incarceration had 72% higher risk of using drug again after release. We also found that respondents with lower education levels were vulnerable to a higher risk of post-release drug use. Lastly, those who participated in SVORI programs benefited from this correctional program; compared to those who did not take part in this program, SVORI participants demonstrated a 48% lower likelihood to use drugs in the first 3 months after release.

Model 3 in Table 3 presents the interaction effects of gender and family dynamics on reincarceration. Neither the interaction terms of gender*family support or gender*family tension was significant, indicating there was no interaction effect of gender and family dynamics when it comes to predicting reincarceration. For the main effect of variables, we observed similar results to those from Model 1. Family support, neighborhood disorder, prior record and age exhibited significant effects on the risk of reincarceration. Released prisoners benefited from family support. However, their reentry was comprised by neighborhood crime issues and their past incarceration records—these two factors increased their risk of reincarceration.

Moving on to a model predicting post-release drug use (Model 4 in Table 3), we found a significant interaction effect of family tension and gender. Family tension took a toll on released prisoners’ reentry; however, the toll was not identical across males and females. With each one unit increase in family tension, women experienced a more pronounced increase in the risk of drug use. Among men, for a one unit increase in family tension, they experienced an increase in the risk of drug use by 55% (b = .44; odds ratio = exp (.73) = 1.55). In contrast, among women, when family tension increased by one unit, they experienced a 108% increase in the risk of drug use (b = .44+.29 = .73; odds ratio = exp (.73) = 2.08). In other words, the detrimental impact of family tension on female released prisoners was nearly two times that of their male counterparts. In terms of the effect of family support, we did not find an interaction of this protective factor and gender. As to the main effects of predictors, the results were largely in line with what we found in Model 2: Neighborhood drug presence, past drug use history, and participation in the SVORI program exhibited significant effects on post-release drug use. Participating in the SVORI program inhibited post-release drug use while neighborhood drug presence and past drug use history increased the risk of this reentry outcome.

Discussion

Everybody has a family. In the context of prisoner reentry, what does family mean? From the social control perspective, family, similar to marriage, school and employment, is a social institution that keeps people from drifting—engaging in unruled and deviant behaviors (Hirschi, 1969; Sampson & Laub, 1993, 2003). However, we are struck by the findings that troubled families are a cause of crime and delinquency—youth and adults slip into a path of offending .because of what they have experienced in the family (Baron, 2004; Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Herrera & McCloskey, 2003; Reisig et al., 2006). Given these mixed findings, it is imperative to investigate what family means for reentry outcomes instead of assuming its definitive, universal crime-inhibitory effect. The current study directly responds to these questions and situates the role of family and its intersection with gender in the context of reentry. We found that family can either be a barrier or catalyst to desistance depending on the environment of the family. Meanwhile, an interplay of gender and family environment .affects reentry outcomes. We would like to highlight several major findings that emerged from the study.

First, family should not be perceived as a definitive protective factor; it can bring both support and tension. We found that family support protected released prisoners from recidivism; however, family tension was alarmingly criminogenic. Those who fought with family members had a higher risk of drug use after release from prison, even when past drug use history and neighborhood drug presence were .controlled in the model. This full picture of family and reentry encompasses a hybrid lens from both social control and relational theories; moreover, this hybrid lens admits both the protective and criminogenic roles of family and allows them to coexist. Therefore, in order to further our understanding of the role of family in reentry, we should acknowledge the heterogeneous elements in the role of family—support, love, tension and abuse—and systematically examine these elements’ impacts on released prisoners.

Second, due to distinct etiologies, different types of reentry failure have varied sensitivity from the influences of family support and tension. Family support significantly inhibited recidivism but not post-release drug use, while family tension increased the risk of drug use but exhibited no significant effect on recidivism. It seems that relationship issues are a salient trigger to substance use but not recidivism, and this finding can be understood from the distinct etiologies of offending and drug use. Drug use is considered as an escapist behavior to cope with an issue in life that cannot be easily resolved (Hollist, & McBroom, 2006; Mallett et al., 2005; Orford et al., 2005). People can easily return an item that turns out to be defective to the store; however, they cannot resolve the complex family tension in a similarly simple manner. Facing the abuse and disagreement from biologically or legally bound individuals especially from those with whom they share the same roof every day, released prisoners may easily fall victim to anxiety, grievance and depression. Substance use can immediately alleviate the negative mood and produce positive emotions, at least temporarily (Agnew, 2006; Brown et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2019). Therefore, drug use, as one dimension of reentry outcome, is particularly sensitive to family tension, friction and conflict.

In contrast, reoffending, as another domain of reentry outcome, has a different etiology. It can be caused by emotional disturbance—as observed in expressive crimes such as assaulting and battering (Cohn & Rotton, 2003; Miethe & Drass, 1999). However, more often reoffending results from deviant peer association (Boman & Mowen, 2017; Mowen & Boman, 2018), anti-social culture (Skilling & Sorge, 2014; Smith et al., 2012; Walters & Lowenkamp, 2016), and financial difficulty (Bushway, 2004; Garcia-Hallett, 2019; Liu et al., 2020c; Travis, 2002). Family support is found to neutralize reentry challenges such as financial difficulty, social rejection and isolation (Duwe & Clark, 2013; Liu & Visher, 2019; Mowen & Visher, 2016; Visher & Courtney, 2007). Therefore, family support in our study emerged as a specific protective factor for recidivism but not for drug use.

Third, there is an intersection between gender and family tension in affecting post-release drug use. Family tension exacted a heavier toll on reentry outcomes for females. Compared to males, female respondents in our study experienced faster growth in their risk of post-release substance use as they experienced an escalation in family tension. This gendered effect of family tension echoes the feminist literature of gender role socialization (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 2004; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Gilligan, 1982; Messerschmidt, 2009). Due to socially constructed gender expectations, females are expected to be domestic centered and nurturing children; they are cultivated to have a stronger desire for interpersonal closeness and relationships (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 2004; Gilligan, 1982; Thoits, 1991). Therefore, they are more sensitive to relational problems and more likely to fall victim to a. troubling family environment. Under the fear of comprising relationships, women are less likely to act out and burst into a moral rage to vent their resentment toward others (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). They tend to blame themselves for the undesirable situation and resort to self-medication such as substance use and eating disorders to cope with abusive and troubling family relationships (Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Liu et al., 2019; Lynch et al., 2013). The intersection of gender and family conflict is consequential to a comprehensive understanding of gender, family dynamics and reentry outcomes, especially substance use disorder.

Before presenting the policy implications of our findings, we would like to note a few limitations of this analysis. First, the SVORI sample contained individuals whose convicted offenses for the current incarceration were marked as serious and violent. Thus, findings from this study may not be generalizable to other offender populations such as youth delinquents, whose delinquency and offending are situated in a different life context. Future research should use samples of varied offender groups to examine the intersection between gender, family dynamics and desistance. Second, due to data limitations, family tension was captured by one measure that tapped into the frequency by which respondents fought with family members. Future studies should measure family conflict with multitude measures that capture family fights, family members’ indifference, and decrease in family activities. Another limitation in our measures lies in the relatively short follow-up period after release. Variables in this study were collected in a 6-month follow-up period after release. It would be desirable to have a longer follow-up period such as 18 to 24 months to observe respondents’ reintegration outcomes. Lastly, we used reincarceration as a proxy for recidivism. Just as other types of measures of recidivism (e.g., self-reported recidivism and administrative rearrests data), this measure is not without limitation. Some offenses respondents committed after release may have been unnoticed and thus were not captured in their reincarceration records. Meanwhile, reincarceration can occur due to reasons other than recidivism. Individuals can be sent back to prison for missing an appointment with community supervision officers. Due to data limitations, we could not examine the exact reasons for reincarceration among respondents. Future studies should collect data that include the reasons for reincarceration, which can differentiate respondents who recidivate from those whose reincarceration was due to technical violations.

The findings revealed in our study can be translated into useful recommendations for correctional policymaking. First, a family reunion featuring support and warmth plays a consequential role in the reentry process. Initiatives should be implemented to help soon-to-be-released prisoners better prepare for life challenges after release. Cognitive behavioral programs, such as Thinking for a Change (Wilson et al., 2005), can be helpful if initiated prior to the release from incarceration. These programs help former prisoners properly face stress and be better adapted to the changes in post-release life structure, which may decrease their risk of experiencing family tension and conflict upon release. Communication skill workshops can help incarcerated men and women build effective communication skills with family members, which may increase the likelihood that family members have a proper understanding of released prisoners’ situations and feelings. Supportive programs and counseling resources should also be provided to family members, which can assist their adaptation and foster a supportive familial environment for former prisoners.

Second, our findings clearly show that in the context of reentry, family has a complex rather than a monolithic or unidimensional role. Family can exert either a criminogenic or anti-criminogenic influence on released prisoners depending on the familial environment. Reentry programs often address maintaining the bonds with family members; fewer counseling programs focus on how to change an unsupportive and toxic situation for the better, or when and how to sever abusive relationships. Our study shows that building healthy family ties is as important as severing abusive and conflicting relationships. Counseling programs should be provided to incarcerated men and women to equip them with interpersonal relationship management skills as well as knowledge about the negative influence a toxic family relationship can bring.

Third, gender-responsive programs are needed to equip women with knowledge about gender, victimization, and substance use. Female released prisoners were more sensitive to family tension; they experienced an amplified risk of drug use under the influence of family tension. In addition, the prevalence of past abuse victimization among female respondents was ten times higher than males. To dismantle the malicious cycle of victimization, crime, release and re-victimization, correctional agencies should provide gender-responsive counseling programs that help women understand the nexus of gender, troubling relationships and substance use. Meanwhile, counselors and therapists should work together with domestic violence officers in local police departments as well as agencies that provide women’s shelters to create wrap-around care for female released prisoners. By addressing the distinct sources of reentry risks for women and providing them with the consequential skills and resources to navigate reentry life, correctional agencies can help them find a successful path back to society.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix A.

Item Loadings of Family Support.

	Factor loadings
Family support	–
To what extent do you agree with the statement?
I feel close to my family. (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree	0.67
I have someone to talk to about problems.	0.85
I have someone to turn to for suggestions.	0.90
I have someone who understands my problems.	0.87
I have someone to love me.	0.82

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lin Liu

Notes

Author Biographies

Lin Liu, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida International University. Her research interests revolve sentencing, reentry, life-course offending trajectories, and quantitative methods. Recent publications appear in Crime & Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Women & Criminal Justice, The Prison Journal, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Social Science Research, Marquette Law Review, Contemporary Justice Review, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and Sociological Inquiry.

Christy Visher is professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware and Director of the Center for Drug and Health Studies. Prior to joining the University of Delaware, she was principal research associate with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. Her research interests focus on communities and crime, substance use, criminal careers, the role of social factors in criminal desistance, and the evaluation of strategies for crime control and prevention.

References

Abeling-Judge

(2020). Social bonding experiences facilitating desistance in adolescence. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720940952

Adler

(1975) Sisters in crime. McGraw-Hill.

Agnew

(2006). General strain theory: Recent developments and directions for further research. In Cullen

F. T.

Wright

Coleman

(Eds.), Advances in criminological theory, taking stock: The status of criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp.101–123). Transaction Publishers.

Arditti

J. A.

Few

A. L.

(2006). Mothers’ reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 103–123.

Baron

S. W.

(2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457–484.

Beach

S. R.

Fincham

F. D.

Katz

Bradbury

T. N.

(1996). Social support in marriage. In Pierce

G. R.

Sarason

B. R.

Sarason

I. G.

(Eds.,) Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 43–65). Springer.

Belknap

(2014). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Nelson Education.

Belknap

Holsinger

(2006). The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1, 48–71.

Berg

M. T.

Huebner

B. M.

(2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 382–410.

10.

Bersani

B. E.

Doherty

E. E.

(2013). When the ties that bind unwind: Examining the enduring and situational processes of change behind the marriage effect. Criminology, 51, 399–433.

11.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

(2002). A theoretical basis for gender-responsive strategies in criminal justice. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

12.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

Raeder

(2003). Gender responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections.

13.

Boman

J. H.

IV Mowen

T. J.

(2017). Building the ties that bind, breaking the ties that don’t: Family support, criminal peers, and reentry success. Criminology & Public Policy, 16, 753–774.

14.

Bowles

M. A.

DeHart

Webb

J. R.

(2012). Family influences on female offenders’ substance use: The role of adverse childhood events among incarcerated women. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 681–686.

15.

Braman

(2004). Families and the moral economy of incarceration. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 23, 27–50.

16.

Brank

Lane

Turner

Fain

Sehgal

(2008). An experimental juvenile probation program: Effects on parent and peer relationships. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 193–224.

17.

Breese

J. R.

Ra’el

Grant

G. K.

(2000). No place like home: A qualitative investigation of social support and its effects on recidivism. Sociological Practice, 2, 1–21.

18.

Broidy

Agnew

(1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275–306.

19.

Brown

T. L.

Henggeler

S. W.

Brondino

M. J.

Pickrel

S. G.

(1999). Trauma exposure, protective factors, and mental health functioning of substance-abusing and dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 94–102.

20.

Bushway

S. D.

(2004). Labor market effects of permitting employer access to criminal history records. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 276–291.

21.

Canter

R. J.

(1982). Sex differences in self–report delinquency. Criminology, 20, 373–394.

22.

Carson

E. A.

(2014). Prisoners in 2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs. US Department of Justice.

23.

Chesney-Lind

Irwin

(2013). Beyond bad girls: Gender, violence and hype. Routledge.

24.

Chesney-Lind

Sheldon

R. G.

(2004). Young women, delinquency and juvenile justice (3rd ed.). Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

25.

Clark

T. A.

(2001). The relationship between inmate visitation and behavior: Implications for African American families. Journal of African American Men, 6, 43–58.

26.

Cohn

E. G.

Rotton

(2003). Even criminals take a holiday: Instrumental and expressive crimes on major and minor holidays. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 351–360.

27.

Connell

(2012) Transsexual women and feminist thought: Toward new understanding and new politics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37, 857–881.

28.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & society, 19, 829–859.

29.

Covington

(2002). Helping women recover: Creating gender-responsive treatment. In Straussner

S. L. A.

Brown

(Eds.), The handbook of addiction treatment for women: Theory and practice (pp. 52–72). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

30.

Covington

(2003). A woman’s journey home: Challenges for female offenders. In Travis

Waul

(Eds.), Prisoners once removed (pp. 67–103). Urban Institute.

31.

Covington

(2007). Working with substance abusing mothers: A trauma-informed, gender-responsive approach. The Source, 16, 1–11.

32.

De Coster

Cornell Zito

. (2010). Gender and general strain theory: The gendering of emotional experiences and expressions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 224–245.

33.

Dillon

F. R.

Pantin

Robbins

M. S.

Szapocznik

(2008). Exploring the role of parental monitoring of peers on the relationship between family functioning and delinquency in the lives of African American and Hispanic adolescents. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 65–94.

34.

Duwe

Clark

(2013). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 271–296.

35.

Elo

I. T.

Mykyta

Margolis

Culhane

J. F.

(2009). Perceptions of neighborhood disorder: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1298–1320.

36.

Fritz

Whiteacre

(2016). Prison nurseries: Experiences of incarcerated women during pregnancy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55, 1–20.

37.

Garcia-Hallett

(2019). “We’re Being Released to a Jungle”: The State of Prisoner Reentry and the Resilience of Women of Color. The Prison Journal, 99, 459–483.

38.

Gideon

(2007). Family role in the reintegration process of recovering drug addicts: A qualitative review of Israeli offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06287104

39.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

40.

Goldner

(1991). Toward a critical relational theory of gender. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 1, 249–272.

41.

Herrera

V. M.

McCloskey

L. A.

(2003). Sexual abuse, family violence, and female delinquency: Findings from a longitudinal study. Violence and victims, 18, 319–334.

42.

Herreros

(2015). Ties That Bind: Family Relationships and Social Trust. Rationality and Society, 27, 334–357.

43.

Hipp

J. R.

(2016). Collective efficacy: How is it conceptualized, how is it measured, and does it really matter for understanding perceived neighborhood crime and disorder? Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 32–44.

44.

Hirschi

(1969). The causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

45.

Hollist

D. R.

McBroom

W. H.

(2006). Family structure, family tension, and self-reported marijuana use: A research finding of risky behavior among youths. Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 975–998.

46.

Joe

K. A.

Chesney-Lind

(1995). “Just every mother’s angel” An analysis of gender and ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender & society, 9, 408–431.

47.

Kaeble

Maruschak

L. M.

Bonczar

T. P.

(2015). Probation and parole in the United States, 2014. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

48.

Laird

(2013). Doing time extended: Ex-offenders face tens of thousands of legal restrictions, bias and limits on their rights. ABA Journal, 99, 50–55.

49.

Lattimore

P. K.

Steffey

D. M.

(2009). The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Methodology and analytic approach. RTI International.

50.

Lattimore

P. K.

Visher

C. A.

(2009). The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Summary and synthesis. Urban Institute.

51.

Liu

(2020a). Family, parochial, and public levels of social control and recidivism: An extension of the systemic model of social disorganization. Crime & Delinquency, 66, 864–886.

52.

Liu

(2020b). Parole, neighborhood and reentry outcomes: A contextualized analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20946928

53.

Liu

Miller

S. L.

Qiu

Sun

(2020c). An early adverse experience goes a long, criminogenic, gendered way: The nexus of early adversities, adult offending, and gender. Women & Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2020.1805395

54.

Liu

Miller

S. L.

(2019a). Intersectional Approach to top executive white-collar offenders’ discourses: A case study of the martha stewart and sam waksal insider trading scandal. Sociological Inquiry, 89(4), 600–623.

55.

Liu

Miller

S. L.

(2019b). Protective factors against juvenile delinquency: Exploring gender with a nationally representative sample of youth. Social Science Research, 86, 102376.

56.

Liu

Miller

S. L.

Visher

C. A.

(2019). The strain of procedural injustice in parole among former prisoners: A test with a mixed-gender sample. Justice Quarterly, 1–25.

57.

Liu

Visher

C. A.

(2019). The crossover of negative emotions between former prisoners and their family members during reunion: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58, 567–591.

58.

Liu

Visher

C. A.

Sun

(2020d). Do released prisoners’ perceptions of neighborhood condition affect reentry outcomes? Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420980806

59.

Liu

Visher

C. A.

O’Connell

D. J.

(2020). The strain from procedural injustice on parolees: Bridging procedural justice theory and general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency, 66, 250–276.

60.

Lynch

S. M.

DeHart

D. D.

Belknap

Green

B. L.

(2013). Women’s pathways to jail: Examining mental health, trauma, and substance use. BJA Policy Brief, NCJ241045.

61.

Mallett

Rosenthal

Keys

(2005). Young people, drug use and family conflict: Pathways into homelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 185–199.

62.

Mallik-Kane

Visher

C. A.

(2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration (p. 82). Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

63.

Markman

J. A.

Durose

M. R.

Rantala

R. R.

Tiedt

A. D.

(2016). Recidivism of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1–16.

64.

Martinez

D. J.

(2006). Informal helping mechanisms: Conceptual issues in family support of reentry of former prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 23–37.

65.

Maruschak

L. M.

Parks

(2012). Probation and parole in the United States, 2011. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

66.

McKiernan

Shamblen

S. R.

Collins

D. A.

Strader

T. N.

Kokoski

(2013). Creating lasting family connections: Reducing recidivism with community-based family strengthening model. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 94–122.

67.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(1986). Capitalism, patriarchy, and crime: Toward a socialist feminist criminology. Rowman & Littlefield.

68.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2009). “Doing Gender” the impact and future of a salient sociological concept. Gender & Society, 23, 85–88.

69.

Miethe

T. D.

Drass

K. A.

(1999). Exploring the social context of instrumental and expressive homicides: An application of qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 1–21.

70.

Miller

(1998). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 429–453.

71.

Miller

J. B.

(1986). What do we mean by relationships? (Vol. 22). Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies, Wellesley College.

72.

Miller

J. B.

(1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Beacon Press.

73.

Miller

J. B.

Jordan

J. V.

Kaplan

A. G.

Stiver

I. P.

Surrey

J. L.

(1997). Some misconceptions and reconceptions of a relational approach. Women’s growth in diversity: More writings from the Stone Center, 25–49.

74.

Mowen

T. J.

Boman

J. H

IV . (2018). The duality of the peer effect: The interplay between peer support and peer criminality on offending and substance use during reentry. Crime & Delinquency, 64(8), 1094–1116.

75.

Mowen

T. J.

Stansfield

Boman

J. H.

IV (2019). Family matters: Moving beyond “if” family support matters to “why” family support matters during reentry from prison. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56, 483–523.

76.

Mowen

T. J.

Visher

C. A.

(2015). Drug use and crime after incarceration: The role of family support and family conflict. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 337–359.

77.

Mowen

T. J.

Visher

C. A.

(2016). Changing the ties that bind: How incarceration impacts family relationships. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 503–528.

78.

Naser

R. L.

La Vigne

N. G.

(2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process: Expectations and realities. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 93–106.

79.

Naser

R. L.

Visher

C. A.

(2006). Family members’ experiences with incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7, 20–31.

80.

Nelson

Deess

Allen

(1999). The first month out: Post incarceration experiences in New York City. Vera Institute of Justice.

81.

Neter

Nachstein

Wasserman

(1996). Applied linear regression models. Irwin.

82.

Orford

Templeton

Velleman

Copello

(2005). Family members of relatives with alcohol, drug and gambling problems: A set of standardized questionnaires for assessing stress, coping and strain. Addiction, 100, 1611–1624.

83.

Owen

(1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a woman’s prison. State University of New York Press.

84.

Owen

Bloom

(1995) Profiling the needs of California’s female prisoners. NIC.

85.

Owen

Bloom

(1995). Profiling women prisoners: Findings from national surveys and a California sample. The Prison Journal, 75, 165–185.

86.

Phillips

L. A.

Lindsay

(2011). Prison to society: A mixed methods analysis of coping with reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 136–154.

87.

Pollock

(1998). Counseling women in prison. Sage.

88.

Pollock

J. M.

(2013). Prisons and prison life (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

89.

Prendergast

M. L.

(2009). Interventions to promote successful re-entry among drug-abusing parolees. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 5, 4–13.

90.

Reisig

M. D.

Holtfreter

Morash

(2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384–405.

91.

Robbins

C. A.

Martin

S. S.

Surratt

H. L.

(2009). Substance abuse treatment, anticipated maternal roles, and reentry success of drug-involved women prisoners. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707306688

92.

Rocque

Bierie

D. M.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2010). Social bonds and change during incarceration: Testing a missing link in the reentry research. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10370457

93.

Rosenfield

(1980). Sex differences in depression: Do women always have higher rates? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 33–42.

94.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

Spiropoulos

G. V.

(2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 550–585.

95.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American sociological review, 55, 609–627.

96.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1993). Crime in the making: Pathways andturning points through life. Harvard University Press.

97.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2003). Desistance from crime over the life course. In Mortimer

J. T.

Shanahan

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 295–309). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

98.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

Wimer

(2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508.

99.

Savolainen

(2009). Work, family and criminal desistance: Adult social bonds in a Nordic welfare state. The British Journal of Criminology, 49, 285–304.

100.

Sawyer

(2018). The gender divide: Tracking over time women’s state prison growth. Prison Policy Initiative. www.prisonpolicy.org

101.

Seiter

R. P.

Kadela

K. R.

(2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 360–388.

102.

Shapiro

Schwartz

(2001). Coming home: Building on family connections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 52–61.

103.

Sharp

S. F.

Marcus-Mendoza

S. T.

(2001). It’s a family affair: Incarcerated women and their families. Women & Criminal Justice, 12, 21–49.

104.

Sharp

S. F.

Brewster

Love

S. R.

(2005). Disentangling strain, personal attributes, affective response and deviance: A gendered analysis. Deviant Behavior, 26, 133–157.

105.

Skilling

T. A.

Sorge

G. B.

(2014). Measuring antisocial values and attitudes in justice-involved male youth: Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Pride in Delinquency Scale and the Criminal Sentiments Scale–Modified. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 992–1007.

106.

Smith

Schweitzer

Labrecque

R. M.

Latessa

E. J.

(2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189–199.

107.

Spohn

Holleran

(2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281–306.

108.

Steffensmeier

Painter-Davis

(2018). Focal concerns theory as conceptual tool for studying intersectionality in sentencing disparities: Focus on gender and race along with age. In Ulmer

J. T.

Bradley

M. S.

(Eds.), Handbook on punishment decisions: Locations of disparity. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

109.

Taylor

C. J.

(2015). Gendered pathways to recidivism: Differential effects of family support by gender. Women & Criminal Justice, 25, 169–183.

110.

Thoits

P. A.

(1991). Gender differences in coping with emotional distress. In Eckenrode

(Eds.), The social context of coping (pp. 107–138). Springer.

111.

Travis

Robinson

L. O.

Solomon

A. L.

(2002). Prisoner reentry: Issues for practice and policy. Criminal Justice, 17, 12.

112.

Uggen

(2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65, 529–546.

113.

Uggen

Manza

Behrens

(2004). Less than the average citizen: Stigma. Role Transition, and the Civic Reintegration of Convicted Felons.

114.

Uggen

Thompson

Manza

(2001). Crime, class, and reintegration: The scope and social distribution of America’s criminal class. University of Minnesota Press.

115.

Visher

C. A.

(1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5–28.

116.

Visher

C. A.

Courtney

S. M

. (2007). One year out: Experiences of prisoners returning to Cleveland. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

117.

Visher

C. A.

Kachnowski

La Vigne

N. G.

Travis

(2004). Baltimore prisoners’ experiences returning home. Urban Institute.

118.

Visher

O’Connell

Liu

(2019). Violent offending, desistance, and recidivism. Marquette Law Review, 983–1000.

119.

Visher

Yahner

La Vigne

(2010). Life After Prison: Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston. Research Brief: URBAN INSTITUTE.

120.

Wade

(2008). The ties that bind: Support from birth families and substitute families for young people leaving care. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 39–54.

121.

Walters

G. D.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2016). Predicting recidivism with the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) in community-supervised male and female federal offenders. Psychological Assessment, 28, 652.

122.

Warren

Chiricos

Bales

(2012). The imprisonment penalty for young Black and Hispanic males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 56–80.

123.

Western

(2015). Lifetimes of violence in a sample of released prisoners. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1, 14–30.

124.

Western

Braga

A. A.

Davis

Sirois

(2015). Stress and hardship after prison. American Journal of Sociology, 120, 1512–1547.

125.

Wilson

D. B.

Bouffard

L. A.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172–204.

126.

Wright

J. P.

Cullen

F. T.

Miller

J. T.

(2001). Family social capital and delinquent involvement. Journal of criminal Justice, 29, 1–9.

127.

Zoutewelle-Terovan

Van Der Geest

Liefbroer

Bijleveld

(2014). Criminality and family formation: Effects of marriage and parenthood on criminal behavior for men and women. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 1209–1234.