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

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

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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

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.

b

^*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.