Disentangling the Relationship Between Social Ties,Prison Visitation,and Recidivism

Abstract

Studies find inmates who receive visits while incarcerated are less likely to recidivate upon release, especially when visits are from spouses and occur frequently throughout incarceration. Absent from these studies is measurement of the quality of an inmate’s relationships prior to incarceration, which may play a more significant role in criminal desistance than visitation itself. Longitudinal data from 205 incarcerated male and female adult offenders were used to test the mediating effects of visitation for offenders with varying levels of preincarceration relationships on recidivism. Findings indicate that quality of an inmate’s preincarceration relationships is more important in reducing the odds of recidivism than visitation. When quality of relationships was taken into account, visitation became nonsignificant in predicting the odds of recidivism. Most critical, a strong maternal relationship prior to incarceration was associated with a reduction in recidivism subsequent to a period of incarceration.

Keywords

social ties prison visitation recidivism

Introduction

The quality of an inmate’s experience and psychosocial adjustment during incarceration has a notable impact on his or her postrelease success (MacKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong, & Gover, 2001; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008; Styve, MacKenzie, Gover, & Mitchell, 2000; Wooldredge, 1999). When inmates have postrelease structural components established prior to release, such as housing and employment, their likelihood of long-term success increases (Harrison & Schehr, 2004; La Vigne & Kachnowski, 2005; Morani, Wikoff, Linhorst, & Bratton, 2011). Still, theorists maintain that prosocial connections are most vital for criminal desistance over many other factors (Laub & Sampson, 1993).

Given the multitude of factors that are essential to successful reentry, it is important that no one element is absolutely discounted. Instead, scholars have sought to better understand the interconnectedness of how events that occur, or fail to occur, during imprisonment shape incarceration experiences, and how these events are connected to postrelease success (Armstrong & MacKenzie, 2003; Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran, 2014; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Cochran, Mears, & Bales, 2017; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Gover, Styve, & MacKenzie, 2000; MacKenzie et al., 2001; Mears, Cochran, Siennick, & Bales, 2012).

Scholars argue prison visitation is one type of incarceration experience that influences adjustment to prison and may also influence recidivism through the maintenance of social ties outside the prison walls. Prison visitation creates an opportunity for an inmate to increase his or her hopefulness, motivation, self-esteem, and trust in others (Duncan & Balbar, 2008). Furthermore, visitation may sustain an inmate’s social connectedness outside the prison walls (Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Duncan & Balbar, 2008). When barriers to visitation exist, these relationships are placed at risk (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2003; Sturges & Al-Khattar, 2009; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005), social ties are weakened, and the risk of recidivism increases (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Cobbina, Huebner, & Berg, 2012).

Despite an assumed linkage between preincarceration social ties and prison visitation/recidivism, limited research has examined whether the quality of a relationship prior to incarceration is directly related to the likelihood of prison visitation or whether preincarceration relationships influence recidivism. Instead, the majority of prison visitation studies analyze administrative records and assume these social ties exist but fail to measure their quality. Indeed, research tends to focus on the visitation event as the primary predictor of recidivism. This article aims to disentangle the unique contributions of preincarceration social ties from the influence of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Specifically, this article extends the literature by testing (a) whether a direct effect of preincarceration social ties on prison visitation exists, (b) whether a direct effect of prison visitation on recidivism exists, (c) whether a direct effect of preincarceration relationships on recidivism exists, and, if so, (d) whether the relationship between preincarceration relationships and recidivism is mediated by prison visitation.

Literature Review

Effects of Imprisonment on Social Ties

Short- and long-term incarceration has vast consequences for offenders, their family and community, and society as a whole (Clear, 2007; Mears & Cochran, 2015; Turanovic, Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012). Incarceration reduces human and social capital, results in emotional and financial loss for families, and reduces the stability of the community in which the offender resided prior to incarceration (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). Theorists have long acknowledged the salience of prosocial ties in explaining criminal desistance, whether through informal social control, reductions in strain, modeling of prosocial behavior, social learning, or coping (Agnew, 2005; Bandura, 1977; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Pager, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1990; Sutherland, 1947). When an offender is removed from the community, prosocial ties can become strained. For this reason, the maintenance of these ties is interminably important during periods of incarceration.

Scholars highlight different avenues through which relationships operate, both while an individual is incarcerated and during the transition and postrelease process. For example, during incarceration, prosocial ties have the ability to assist offenders in coping with negative prison experiences, provide emotional support, enhance commitment to family, encourage positive behavior while incarcerated, and increase optimism about their ability to successfully reintegrate back into society (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Cochran, 2012; Maruna, 2001; Siennick, Mears, & Bales, 2013; Visher & O’Connell, 2012; Visher & Travis, 2003). Researchers also find that, once released, offenders who are able to reconnect with their prosocial ties are more successful in desisting from criminal behavior. Petersilia (2003) suggests that family members and other close social networks are critical in assisting released offenders with finding housing and employment, accessing public assistance, and navigating other practical and legal barriers. Maruna (2001) underscores the importance of prosocial ties in providing empowerment and emotional support as the offender regains his or her personal value and self-identity as a productive citizen.

Prison Visitation and Social Ties

To date, researchers have approached assessment of prison visitation from a variety of angles. For instance, this growing body of research has explored who visits prisoners, which prisoners receive visits, the timing and extent of such visits, and barriers to visitation (see, for example, Bales & Mears, 2008; Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Christian, 2005; Cochran, 2014; Cochran et al., 2017; Cochran, Mears, Bales, & Stewart, 2016; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears et al., 2012). The prison visitation experience itself is found to have distinct benefits for the institution, the prisoner, and society as a whole. Scholars have examined the general effect of prison visitation on institutional behavior, maintenance of social ties, and recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Christian, Mellow, & Thomas, 2006; Cochran, 2012, 2014; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Siennick et al., 2013). Consistent with expectations, this extant body of research found that prison visitation helped prisoners maintain their relationships with loved ones while contributing to reduced recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Cochran, 2014; La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005; Mears et al., 2012).

Although consensus regarding the positive impact of prison visitation on postrelease outcomes exists, few studies have examined the manner in which visitation affects a prisoner’s prosocial ties while incarcerated (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; La Vigne et al., 2005). La Vigne and colleagues (2005) explored the effect of preprison familial relationships and in-prison contact on postrelease familial relationships and support for 233 male prisoners. Their findings indicated that preprison relationship quality was unrelated to visits and postrelease relationship quality. Instead, their results demonstrated in-prison contact (i.e., mail/phone contact with a parent and visits from a partner) resulted in stronger familial relationships postrelease (La Vigne et al., 2005). More recently, Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016) examined the effects of prison visits on change in familial attachment during and after incarceration for more than 2,500 male inmates in England and Wales. Results suggested that the strength of preprison familial relationships did not affect recidivism rates. However, prisoners who received visits from their parents while incarcerated developed a strengthened relationship with their parents upon release, and the improved relationships resulted in lower recidivism rates.

Although the findings from these two studies provide initial evidence that prison visitation can strengthen relationships between inmates and their loved ones, limitations in these studies exist. For example, La Vigne and colleagues (2005) measured preprison relationships within 1 to 3 months of the inmates’ release from prison. In addition, they did not disentangle the effects of the various familial relationships that exist. Instead, the researchers defined family as a “blood or legal relative, someone with whom a respondent has a child in common, or a parent or guardian with whom respondents have lived prior to their incarceration” (p. 318). While Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016) measured family attachment at entry into prison and postrelease, they also did not differentiate between attachment to various family members, such as mother, father, significant other, or child. In addition, they did not examine the effects of preprison attachment on prison visits.

Diverse Family Structures and Prison Visitation

As important as prosocial ties and prison visitation are in criminal desistance, the diverse family structure to which many offenders belong can hinder prosocial behavior, contribute to criminality, and reduce the positive effects of visitation. Although recent comprehensive statistics do not exist, studies suggest that a plurality, if not a majority, of incarcerated individuals were raised in single-parent households (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Harper & McLanahan, 2004; Hymowitz, 2012; Snell, 1994). These single-parent households tend to consist of mother and child(ren), with fathers being absent due to various factors, including incarceration (Arditti, 2012; Ellwood & Jencks, 2004). Moreover, according to Arditti, Smock, and Parkman (2005), incarcerated individuals are likely to grow up in families with “intergenerational patterns of criminality that have a history of involvement with the criminal justice system” (p. 268).

In addition, although research suggests that relationship stability and marriage are protective factors against offending (Capaldi, Kim, & Owen, 2008; King, Massoglia, & MacMillian, 2007; Sampson, Laub, & Wimer, 2006), incarceration can strain the romantic relationship between an inmate and his or her significant other. Among incarcerated populations, Roy and Dyson (2005) find male inmates often experience conflict in their intimate relationships, due in part to their incarceration and deteriorating commitment to the relationship. These results parallel other findings of a strong association between incarceration and declining relationships (Hairston, 1995) and separation/divorce (Lopoo & Western, 2005).

Little consensus exists regarding who visits inmates and the impact such visits have on postrelease outcomes. For example, Bales and Mears (2008) found that, within 12 months of release, 27% of Florida inmates were visited by a parent, whereas only 8% were visited by a significant other, and 5% by a spouse. Their findings also suggested that visitation from a romantic partner decreased recidivism, whereas visitation from a parent did not. Duwe and Clark (2013) examined visitation data from more than 16,000 inmates released from Minnesota prisons and observed that, over the inmates’ entire length of stay, 31% received a visit from their mother, 16% received a visit from their father, and 8% received a visit from their spouse. Contrary to Bales and Mears, their results indicated that inmates who received visits from fathers had a lower risk of recidivating, whereas visits from a spouse or mother did not affect recidivism. Clearly, variation exists across studies in who visits inmates and the influence visits have on postrelease outcomes (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016).

As noted above, social ties in addition to a variety of other factors may contribute to who visits inmates during their incarceration. As Christian (2005) aptly suggested, “people who go on the visits may be the ones who are already tightly bonded to the prisoner” (p. 43). Despite the substantial body of visitation research, it remains unclear whether the established visitation effect is attributable to the visits themselves or whether visitation is a proxy for a preexisting high-quality relationship, which itself aids the offender in desisting upon release (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Cobbina et al., 2012). Critical questions remain regarding the influence of offenders’ preincarceration relationships and the manner in which these relationships “may help individuals successfully negotiate difficult life transitions and events” (Bales & Mears, 2008, p. 313). This article builds on the visitation literature and specifically the work of La Vigne et al. (2005) and Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016), by considering the effect of preincarceration relationships on odds of visitation and recidivism. Specifically, we test whether prison visitation is a mediator between preprison relationships and recidivism among a sample of incarcerated individuals.

Current Study

The current study extends the literature by using longitudinal data to examine the link between inmates’ preincarceration relationships, prison visitation, and recidivism. A significant limitation of prior research is addressed by measuring the quality of relationships between inmates and their romantic partner, as well as between inmates and their mother and father who existed prior to incarceration as a key predictor of both the likelihood of visitation while incarcerated and postrelease recidivism. As such, we measure the quality of preprison relationships upon intake into prison and examine the effect of these relationships on future visitation and recidivism. Other limitations in the prison visitation literature highlighted by Bales and Mears (2008) are also addressed, such that we include both male and female inmates and collection of data at multiple adult correctional facilities. This study tests three hypotheses and seeks to answer one research question:

Hypothesis 1: Higher quality of preincarceration relationships has a positive effect on the likelihood of prison visitation.

Hypothesis 2: Prison visitation has an inverse effect on the likelihood of recidivism.

Hypothesis 3: Higher quality of preincarceration relationships has a direct inverse effect on the likelihood of recidivism.

Research Question 1: Does prison visitation mediate the relationship between quality of preincarceration relationships and recidivism?

The three hypotheses stem from findings of prior research (see Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Cochran, 2014; La Vigne et al., 2005). Given the lack of research examining preincarceration relationships, prison visitation, and recidivism in one model, we choose to pose a research question instead of hypothesizing the effects of the overall model.

Method

Participants

This study uses longitudinal data from 205 adult inmates incarcerated in five southern correctional facilities. All five facilities house inmates convicted of felonies carrying a sentence of up to 2 years. As shown in Table 1, the typical participant was a non-White male who was approximately 37 years old at the time of release. Most participants had relatively extensive arrest histories and were incarcerated, on average, for 8½ months.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics of Participants (N = 205)

Variable	%	M	SD	Range
Dependent variable
Rearrested within 2 years (1 = yes, 0 = no)	63			0-1
Independent variables
Quality of relationship
With mother		3.82	1.16	1-5
With father		3.02	1.35	1-5
With romantic partner		3.41	1.08	1-5
Ever visited (1 = yes, 0 = no)	51.2			0-1
By mother	33.7			0-1
By father	10.2			0-1
By romantic partner	26.8			0-1
Control variables
Male (1 = yes, 0 = no)	80.0			0-1
Race/ethnicity (1 = yes, 0 = no)
Caucasian	23.0			0-1
African American	54.0			0-1
Hispanic	23.0			0-1
Offender’s age at release (years)		36.76	10.03	19-61
Length of incarceration (months)		8.49	4.66	1-41
Number of prior arrests		8.50	5.24	1-31

Procedure

Following the institutional review board–approved protocol, members of the research team approached inmates during the correctional facility’s standard intake process while inmates waited for various stages of processing. As a result of this approach, a convenience sample of inmates who engaged in intake during the 1-week data collection period comprised the sample. Each inmate was individually approached by a research team member who also provided supervision while the survey was completed in the event that a question arose. As a member of the research team became available from overseeing the prior survey completion, they approached the next available inmate for participation. The research team member provided an overview of the project and presented a consent form to the inmate for review and signature if that inmate was inclined to participate. Although no specific incentives were provided, the inmates were consistently willing to participate in the brief survey, likely because they were otherwise not engaged in any activity. Each inmate was asked to complete the paper and pencil survey that included questions regarding the quality of their relationships with their mother, father, and romantic partner.¹

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable of interest in this study is a dichotomous measure of recidivism. Recidivism is operationalized as rearrest for a new offense within 2 years of release from prison (coded as 1 = yes, 0 = no). Recidivism data were obtained from official Department of Public Safety criminal history records. Whereas some researchers in this area have used reconviction for a new felony as the dependent variable (Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Mears et al., 2012), we used rearrest to ensure the capture of low-level offenses. This is an important consideration because approximately 15% of offenders rearrested in this sample were arrested for a misdemeanor offense.

Independent Variables

Quality of preincarceration relationships

The first independent variable of interest in this study is the quality of relationships prior to incarceration. The quality of preincarceration relationships was measured among three different adult relationships: quality of relationship with mother, quality of relationship with father, and quality of relationship with romantic partner. Each relationship was assessed using a four-item scale that measured the importance of the relationship, the level of warmth and affection received, the amount of support and encouragement received, and the inmate’s overall level of satisfaction with the relationship. Response options ranged from 1 to 5, where higher scale scores indicated the inmate perceived a higher quality relationship with the individual.

Scale scores were calculated by adding together item scores and dividing by the number of items on each scale. If an inmate responded to some, but not all, of the questions on the scale, the scale score was calculated by adding together the answered item scores and dividing by the number of items the inmate answered. If an inmate did not respond to a set of questions, the missing data were replaced with the scale mean of those who did answer the scale questions.² For the quality of relationship with mother scale, 81% of respondents answered all four questions, 7% answered at least one question (averaging 2.33 [of four] questions answered), and 12% did not answer any of the questions. For the quality of relationship with father scale, 68% of respondents answered all four questions, 16% answered at least one question (averaging 2.03 questions answered), and 16% did not answer any of the questions. For the quality of relationship with romantic partners scale, 64% of respondents answered all four questions, 5% answered at least one question (averaging 2.18 questions answered), and 31% did not answer any of the questions. Reliability tests demonstrated strong internal validity for scales assessing relationship with inmates’ mothers (α = .903), fathers (α = .924), and romantic partners (α = .877). See the appendix for the scale questions, associated factor scores, and reliability coefficients.³

Prison visitation

The second independent variable of interest in this study is prison visitation. Official visitation data were obtained from the state’s Department of Corrections. These data included the number of visits an inmate received and the relationship of the visitor to the inmate for each visitation event. Visitation was dichotomized to measure whether an inmate ever received a visit while incarcerated (coded as 1 = yes, 0 = no). Similar to Bales and Mears (2008), visitation was initially conceptualized as both a dichotomous incidence and as a rate of visits received per month. No significant differences existed between the two methods of operationalization. For clarity of interpretation of the results, the following analyses utilize the dichotomized visitation variable. Visitation was trifurcated by type of visitor with a focus here on (a) visit from mother, (b) visit from father, and (c) visit from romantic partner, defined as spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend. Consistent with prior research, visitation at any point during the current incarceration period was considered (see, for example, Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; La Vigne et al., 2005).

Control Variables

To avoid bias and remain consistent with past literature on prison visitation and recidivism, we included multiple individual control variables. Dichotomous indicators included male (1 = yes, 0 = no), White (1 = yes, 0 = no), Black (1 = yes, 0 = no), and Hispanic (1 = yes, 0 = no), with Black serving as the reference category. Other variables included age at time of release (measured in years), length of incarceration (measured in months), and number of prior arrests.⁴

Analytic Strategy

All survey data were coded and entered into IBM SPSS version 24. The analytic plan was based on the following steps taken. First, descriptive statistics were presented for the dependent variable (i.e., recidivism) as well as for all independent variables of interest. Second, we computed Pearson correlation coefficients to examine the relationship between all variables to be included in subsequent analyses. Next, we conducted five separate binary logistic regression models to test Hypotheses 1 to 3. Binary logistic regression was utilized because the outcome variables of interest (i.e., visitation and recidivism) are dichotomous measures. For the final step in these analyses, we utilized StataMP 14 to conduct generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) to determine the direct effects of preincarceration quality of relationships with mother, father, and romantic partner, and prison visitation on recidivism. This model allowed us to examine whether the effect of the quality of relationships was mediated by prison visitation. A GSEM approach was needed as a result of the dichotomous nature of the outcome variable.

Results

We begin by examining the descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables of interest. As seen in Table 1, 63% of inmates were rearrested within 2 years following release, which is consistent with recidivism rates across the United States (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). In this sample, of the three adult relationship scales, inmates indicated having the highest quality relationship with their mother. The average scale score was 3.82 (out of 5; SD = 1.16), denoting an overall perceived relationship with their mother that was positive. Inmates indicated having an overall perceived relationship with their romantic partner that was slightly better than neutral, where the average scale score for the quality of relationship with their romantic partner was 3.41 (out of 5; SD = 1.08). Regarding the inmates’ father, the average scale score was 3.02 (out of 5; SD = 1.35) suggesting a perceived relationship with their father that was neutral. Of the three adult relationship scales, inmates had the lowest quality relationship with their father. In addition, as shown in Table 1, 34% of inmates were visited at least once by their mother, 10% were visited by their father, and 27% were visited by their romantic partner. Fifty-one percent of the sample received a visit from either their mother, father, or romantic partner. Examination of visit frequency indicated that inmates were visited by their mom, on average, 0.29 times per month or once every 3 months, which was similar to the rate of romantic partner visits of 0.34 times per month. Fathers visited, on average, 0.06 times per month.

Table 2 displays the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix for all variables included in subsequent analyses. Although a number of statistically significant relationships are evident, no significant collinearity was found (all tolerance statistics were above 0.1 and all variance inflation factor [VIF] statistics were below 10). Of specific interest are the statistically significant correlations between quality of relationship with mother and mother visitation and recidivism, quality of relationship with father and father visitation, and quality of relationship with romantic partner and partner visitation.

Table 2:

Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Recidivism	—
2. Quality of relationship—mother	−.16*	—
3. Quality of relationship—father	−.04	.40***	—
4. Quality of relationship—partner	−.12	.17	.17*	—
5. Visitation—mother (1 = yes)	.03	.18*	.00	−.05	—
6. Visitation—father (1 = yes)	−.04	.00	.23***	.03	.24***	—
7. Visitation—partner (1 = yes)	−.13	.01	−.02	.32***	.17*	.05	—
8. Male	.09	.14*	−.02	.02	.23	.09	.01	—
9. White	.06	−.05	−.10	−.15*	.05	.00	.00	−.03	—
10. African American	−.12	.12	.05	.14*	−.04	−.04	−.08	−.04	−.60***	—
11. Hispanic	.08	−.09	.05	−.02	.00	.05	.09	.08	−.30***	−.59***	—
12. Age at release	−.12	.02	.07	−.17*	−.34***	−.22***	−.19**	−.16*	.02	.11	−.14*	—
13. Months incarcerated	.03	.00	.01	.08	.07	.11	.06	.06	−.09	−.01	.10	.01	—
14. Prior arrests	.24***	−.01	−.07	−.12	−.19**	−.16*	−.17*	.09	.00	.06	−.07	.34***	.09	—

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

To test Hypothesis 1, which states that higher quality preincarceration relationships have a positive effect on the likelihood of visitation, separate logistic regression models for mother, father, and romantic partner were utilized. As shown in Table 3 (Model 1), inmates who perceived a higher quality relationship with their mother prior to incarceration had significantly higher odds of being visited by their mother while incarcerated (odds ratio [OR] = 1.46). In addition, inmates who were younger and male had significantly higher odds of being visited by their mother. Model 2 examines quality of relationship with father and father visitation. Results indicate that for every one point increase in the quality of relationship with their father scale, the odds of being visited by their father more than doubled (OR = 2.03).

Table 3:

Logistic Regression Models for Hypothesis 1

	Model 1: Mother relationship on mother visitation (Hypothesis 1)				Model 2: Father relationship on father visitation (Hypothesis 1)				Model 3: Romantic partner relationship on partner visitation (Hypothesis 1)
Independent variable	b	SE	Exp(B)	95% CI	b	SE	Exp(B)	95% CI	b	SE	Exp(B)	95% CI
Quality of relationship—mother	0.38	0.16	1.46*	[1.06, 1.99]	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Quality of relationship—father	—	—	—	—	0.71	0.22	2.03***	[1.31, 3.15]	—	—	—	—
Quality of relationship—partner	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.82	0.20	2.26***	[1.53, 3.35]
Age at release	−0.07	0.02	0.93***	[0.90, 0.97]	−0.08	0.03	0.93*	[0.88, 0.99]	−0.02	0.02	0.98	[0.94, 1.01]
White	0.40	0.41	1.50	[0.66, 3.37]	0.51	0.65	1.67	[0.46, 6.00]	0.54	0.44	1.72	[0.73, 4.04]
Hispanic	−0.25	0.42	0.78	[0.34, 1.79]	0.09	0.63	1.09	[0.32, 3.73]	0.58	0.43	1.79	[0.78, 4.14]
Male	1.47	0.54	4.35**	[1.51, 12.56]	0.83	0.82	2.29	[0.46, 11.29]	−0.12	0.44	0.89	[0.38, 2.09]
Total prior arrests	−0.06	0.04	0.94	[0.88, 1.01]	−0.08	0.07	0.92	[0.81, 1.05]	−0.06	0.04	0.95	[0.88, 1.02]
Months incarcerated	0.05	0.04	1.05	[0.98, 1.12]	0.06	0.05	1.06	[0.96, 1.16]	0.02	0.04	1.02	[0.95, 1.10]
Constant	−0.80	1.04	0.45		−2.84	1.47	0.06		−3.04	1.19	0.048*
Nagelkerke R²	.28				.27				.22

Note. 95% CI are reported for the odds ratio. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Regarding romantic partner visits, inmates who had a higher quality relationship with their romantic partner prior to incarceration had significantly higher odds of being visited by their romantic partner while incarcerated (OR = 2.26). No other covariates included in the model significantly predicted the likelihood of romantic partner visitation. Results from Models 1 to 3 confirm Hypothesis 1, such that the quality of an inmate’s relationship with his or her mother, father, and romantic partner influences the likelihood of visitation by the respective individual.

Model 4 in Table 4 displays the logistic regression results testing Hypothesis 2, which states prison visitation has an inverse effect on the likelihood of recidivism. One model, which included all visitation variables, was computed.⁵ Although mother and father visitation did not predict recidivism, inmates visited by a romantic partner while incarcerated had significantly lower odds of recidivating upon release (OR = 0.49). Consistent with prior literature, younger inmates and those with more prior arrests had significantly higher odds of being rearrested during the 2-year follow-up. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported, such that romantic partner visitation, but not mother or father visitation, is related to success upon release.

Table 4:

Logistic Regression Models for Hypotheses 2 and 3

	Model 4: Visitation on recidivism(Hypothesis 2)				Model 5: Relationships on recidivism(Hypothesis 3)
Independent variable	b	SE	Exp(B)	95% CI	b	SE	Exp(B)	95% CI
Quality of relationship—mother	—	—	—	—	−0.35	0.16	0.70*	[0.52, 0.96]
Quality of relationship—father	—	—	—	—	0.14	0.13	1.14	[0.89, 1.48]
Quality of relationship—partner	—	—	—	—	−0.23	0.16	0.79	[0.58, 1.08]
Visitation—mother	0.15	0.37	1.16	[0.56, 2.40]	—	—	—	—
Visitation—father	−0.45	0.52	0.64	[0.23, 1.78]	—	—	—	—
Visitation—partner	−0.72	0.36	0.49*	[0.24, 0.98]	—	—	—	—
Age at release	−0.05	0.02	0.95**	[0.92, 0.98]	−0.05	0.02	0.95**	[0.92, 0.98]
White	0.53	0.40	1.69	[0.78, 3.68]	0.37	0.40	1.45	[0.66, 3.20]
Hispanic	0.55	0.40	1.74	[0.79, 3.80]	0.32	0.41	1.38	[0.62, 3.05]
Male	0.11	0.40	1.12	[0.52, 2.44]	0.31	0.40	1.36	[0.62, 2.99]
Total prior arrests	0.14	0.04	1.15***	[1.07, 1.24]	0.14	0.04	1.15***	[1.07, 1.24]
Months incarcerated	0.01	0.04	1.01	[0.94, 1.08]	0.00	0.03	1.00	[0.94, 1.07]
Constant	1.20	0.85	3.32		2.67	1.16	14.47
Nagelkerke R²	.18				.20

Note. 95% CI are reported for the odds ratio. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results from the logistic regression model testing Hypothesis 3 are also displayed in Table 4 (Model 5). Hypothesis 3 states that higher quality preincarceration relationships have an inverse effect on recidivism. Findings indicate that the inmate’s quality of relationship prior to incarceration with their mother was significantly and inversely related to the odds of recidivating. Specifically, for every one-point increase in the quality of preincarceration maternal relationships scale, the odds of recidivating decreased by 30% (OR = 0.70). Furthermore, younger inmates and inmates who had more extensive arrest histories had significantly higher odds of recidivating. Interestingly, the inmate’s quality of relationship with neither his or her father nor his or her romantic partner was significantly related to likelihood of recidivism. Hypothesis 3 is partially supported, such that the quality of the inmate’s preincarceration maternal relationship influenced recidivism, but the quality of paternal and romantic partner relationships did not.

The final step in these analyses utilized GSEM to determine the direct and indirect effects of preincarceration quality of relationships with mother, father, and romantic partner and prison visitation on recidivism, as well as whether prison visitation mediated the effect of the quality of relationships on recidivism. In examining Research Question 1, a single model simultaneously estimated the relative influence of relationship quality on visitation, the relative influence of visitation on recidivism, as well as the influence of relationship quality on recidivism. Covariates previously considered were also included.⁶

Figure 1 displays the ORs for all pathways from the solution (see Table 5 for standardized and unstandardized coefficients, standard errors, and confidence intervals). Although many of the coefficients are consistent with earlier models, interesting distinctions emerge. Consistent with previous findings testing Hypothesis 1, the quality of relationships with mother, father, and romantic partner were significantly and positively related to the likelihood of mother, father, and romantic partner visitation, respectively.

Figure 1:

Generalized Structural Equation Model With Odds Ratio

Table 5:

Generalized Structural Equation Model (Research Question 1)

Dependent variable	Independent variable	b	SE	Exp(B)	95% CI
Visitation—mother	Quality of relationship—mother	0.35	0.14	1.42*	[1.07, 1.88]
Visitation—mother	Constant	−2.05	0.59	0.13**
Visitation—father	Quality of relationship—father	0.65	0.21	1.91**	[1.27, 2.87]
Visitation—father	Constant	−4.40	0.84	0.01***
Visitation—partner	Quality of relationship—partner	0.86	0.20	2.36***	[1.60, 3.47]
Visitation—partner	Constant	−4.17	0.77	0.02***
Recidivism	Quality of relationship—mother	−4.30	0.17	0.65**	[0.47, 0.90]
	Quality of relationship—father	−0.74	0.55	1.20	[0.91, 1.56]
	Quality of relationship—partner	−0.19	0.16	0.83	[0.60, 1.14]
	Visitation—mother	0.31	0.39	1.37	[0.34, 2.95]
	Visitation—father	−0.74	0.55	0.47	[0.16, 1.40]
	Visitation—partner	−0.57	0.38	0.57	[0.27, 1.18]
	Male	0.32	0.41	1.38	[0.62, 3.07]
	Age at release	−0.06	0.02	0.94**	[0.91, 0.98]
	Total prior arrests	0.14	0.04	1.15***	[1.07, 1.23]
	Constant	3.28	1.16	26.52**

Note. 95% CI are reported for the odds ratio. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Parental visitation remained consistent in its lack of relationship to recidivism (Hypothesis 2), which is also similar to research by Bales and Mears (2008). Importantly, however, in the full model, Hypothesis 2 is no longer supported. Specifically, romantic partner visitation no longer influences recidivism. This finding is consistent with Duwe and Clark (2013) but in contrast to Bales and Mears’ (2008) study.

Finally, inmates who had a higher quality relationship with their mother prior to incarceration not only had higher odds of being visited by their mother (Hypothesis 1) but also had significantly lower odds of recidivating (Hypothesis 3). Yet, whether or not a parent visited had no influence on the odds of recidivism. It was also interesting that the preincarceration quality of relationship with father or a romantic partner was not influential on recidivism. Thus, having a high-quality relationship with their father or a romantic partner prior to incarceration may result in visitation; however, it did not affect long-term offender success.

Discussion

Several key studies have emerged to suggest visitation of inmates during incarceration is a key factor in successful reentry (Bales & Mears, 2008; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Cobbina et al., 2012; Cochran, 2014). Much of the literature in this area finds a moderately positive influence of either a parental figure (Bales & Mears, 2008) or romantic partner visitation on a reduced likelihood of recidivism, although some inconsistencies in the literature exist (see Duwe & Clark, 2013). On the surface, visitation appears to be the mechanism contributing to these positive outcomes. This study, however, proposed a more complex relationship is at hand, suggesting an examination of the role of inmates’ quality of preincarceration relationships with romantic partners and parents. Specifically, this article suggested that the quality of inmates’ relationships with potential visitors (i.e., romantic partners and parents) prior to incarceration plays an important direct role in the receipt of visits and on the likelihood of recidivism.

Results from the final model of this study found that although the quality of preincarceration relationships is significantly associated with visitation (Hypothesis 1 confirmed), visits themselves do not translate into reduced recidivism (Hypothesis 2 rejected). These findings are in direct contrast to the bulk of existing literature on this topic, which finds that visitation reduces the likelihood of recidivism (see, for example, Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran, 2014). Contributing to reduced recidivism, however, is the quality of an inmate’s relationship with his or her mother prior to incarceration, such that inmates who had a higher quality relationship with their mother had significantly reduced odds of recidivating upon release (Hypothesis 3 partially supported). This finding held even when including maternal visitation in the full model, which answers Research Question 1.

The current study builds on an interesting comment by Bales and Mears (2008) who questioned

if social ties constitute a type of social capital . . . must they be especially strong to produce a crime reducing effect? . . . it would seem reasonable to anticipate that intense social ties would be required to contribute to desistance, but perhaps “weak ties” are sufficient. (p. 313)

Indeed, this study finds that strong ties are needed to impact desistance, yet maternal ties were singularly important. Neither the pre-incarceration quality of the inmate’s relationship with their father nor romantic partner were significantly related to recidivism. Although previous studies examining the effect of preincarceration relationships have found no impact on preincarceration familial relationships and visits (La Vigne et al., 2005) or recidivism (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016), these studies did not disentangle the effects of the various familial relationships that exist.

Our findings, which are in contrast to those of La Vigne and colleagues (2005) and Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016), could be attributed to a variety of factors. Relationships between mothers and their incarcerated children, for example, could be substantively different from the relationships between incarcerated individuals and their fathers and romantic partners. Specifically, an extant body of research has documented the unique and often unconditional bond between mothers and their children (see, for example, Boyd, 1989; Rowland & Thomas, 1996). Conversely, research suggests that incarcerated individuals have tenuous romantic relationships before, during, and after incarceration, which can lead to unmet expectations surrounding intimate relationships and a lack of social support postrelease (Hairston, 1995; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Roy & Dyson, 2005). Research also shows that the rise in single-parent households since the 1960s, specifically in disadvantaged communities from which many incarcerated individuals come, has led to less involvement of fathers in the lives of their children (Arditti et al., 2005; Ellwood & Jencks, 2004).

A better understanding of the mechanisms through which maternal figures serve as a support system that leads to reduced recidivism is not fully resolved. Given the distinct nature of the mother–child relationship, mothers might be more apt to offer direct social and emotional support (Listwan, Colvin, Hanley, & Flannery, 2010) or play an instrumental role in providing connections that allow for a response to offender structural needs (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Pager, 2003; Uggen, Wakefield, & Western, 2005). For the incarcerated offenders with strong maternal bonds, it is possible that they reside with their mothers upon release, as their mothers are willing to welcome them into their home. This can translate into reduced recidivism, as research suggests that securing housing is crucial to successful reentry (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011; Lutze, Rosky, & Hamilton, 2014; Roman & Travis, 2006).

Beyond structural assurances, social support is identified as a critical component of an offender’s successful reentry (Naser & La Vigne, 2006). Specifically, familial support plays a key role in successful postincarceration adjustment. When families (or individual family members) are willing and able to provide support to offenders upon release, studies find those offenders have a lower likelihood of substance use and recidivism (La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2004; Nelson, Deess, & Allen, 1999; Sullivan, Mino, Nelson, & Pope, 2002). Still, researchers caution “more research exploring these relationships is in order” (Naser & La Vigne, 2006, p. 104), emphasizing that a finite number of studies have explored the role of family support in desistance (Mowen & Visher, 2013).

Limitations

To contextualize the merits of the results presented, it is necessary to discuss the limitations of this study. Specifically, this study was based on a convenience sample of 205 inmates from one state. Although the demographics of the study participants include both male and female inmates and represent the diverse nature of prisoners (Carson & Anderson, 2016), the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, we did not measure change in quality of relationships throughout the duration of incarceration. Some critics might argue that quality of relationships at the onset of incarceration is not reflective of those same relationships upon release. Whereas Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016) found that prisoners who received visits from their parents while incarcerated developed a strengthened relationship with their parents upon release, other researchers have observed no significant change in attachment of inmates to friends and family during their period of incarceration (La Vigne et al., 2005; Rocque, Bierie, & MacKenzie, 2011). We should also emphasize the relatively short time period that our sample spent incarcerated (M = 8.5 months).

Moreover, a lack of qualitative information about the visits exists. In this study, we utilized a dichotomous measure to capture whether visitation occurred. The lack of a “visitation effect” could depend not only on the quality of preexisting relationships that an inmate has with others but also on structural factors regarding the visitation experience (see Cochran, 2014). Scholars have argued the process leading up to the visitation itself, as well as the environment in the facility, can influence whether the visitation experience between the inmate and visitor is positive. For example, Tewksbury and DeMichele (2005) outlined barriers to visitation experiences that should be considered when examining visitation, including cleanliness and comfort of the visitation area, perceptions of treatment by staff during visitation, the length of visiting hours, and reasonableness of visitation rules (see also Comfort, 2003). Furthermore, researchers have highlighted other practical barriers to visitation, such as the distance between where the family member lives and the prison in which the inmate is housed. Cochran and colleagues (2016) suggested distance between home and the facility to negatively affect the likelihood of visitation.

Direction for Future Research

The results presented herein open lines for future exploration on the topic of preprison relationship quality, prison visitation, and postrelease success. Researchers should continue to move beyond analyzing administrative visitation data and focus on in-depth examinations of relationship quality and its impact on postrelease success. Specifically, more research is needed that examines the relationships between offenders and specific individuals in their lives (e.g., mothers, fathers, romantic partners, and children). In addition, future studies should consider the quality of the visitation experience as an extension of the model tested in this study. Despite a strong relationship that leads to visitation occurring, it is possible that the visitation event itself may not be of sufficient quality or length to meaningfully contribute to long-term planning or success upon the offender’s release.

Conclusion

This longitudinal study sought to extend the prison visitation literature by examining the link between an inmate’s preincarceration relationships, prison visitation, and recidivism. We measured the quality of inmates’ preprison relationships with their mother, father, and romantic partner and examined the effect of these relationships on future visitation and recidivism. Overall, results suggested that although stronger relationships did result in increased visitation, this visitation did not result in decreased recidivism. Instead, having a strong relationship with one’s mother prior to incarceration resulted in decreased recidivism. Regardless of whether mothers provide structural or social support to aid in desistance, it is increasingly evident that family, specifically a mother, is a central component in the “multi-layered” reentry process (Mowen & Visher, 2013, p. 1).

Footnotes

Appendix

Description of Quality of Relationship Scales and Factor Loadings

Scale	Coding	Factor loading
Quality of relationship with mother (α = .903)
1. How important has your relationship with your mother been to you?	1 = not important at all 5 = very important	.828
2. How much warmth and affection do you get from your mother?	1 = very little 5 = a great deal	.923
3. How much support and encouragement have you received from your mother?	1 = very little 5 = a great deal	.889
4. Overall, how satisfied have you been with your relationship with your mother?	1 = very dissatisfied 5 = very satisfied	.878
Quality of relationship with father (α = .924)
1. How important has your relationship with your father been to you?	1 = not important at all 5 = very important	.862
2. How much warmth and affection do you get from your father?	1 = very little 5 = a great deal	.927
3. How much support and encouragement have you received from your father?	1 = very little 5 = a great deal	.924
4. Overall, how satisfied have you been with your relationship with your father?	1 = very dissatisfied 5 = very satisfied	.897
Quality of relationship with romantic partner (α = .877)
1. How important is your relationship with your (spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend) to you?	1 = not important at all 5 = very important	.835
2. How much warmth and affection do you get from your (spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend)?	1 = very little 5 = a great deal	.884
3. How much support and encouragement have you received from your (spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend)?	1 = very little 5 = a great deal	.904
4. How satisfied have you been with the quality of your relationship with your (spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend)?	1 = very dissatisfied 5 = very satisfied	.802

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. Her research interests span both institutional and community corrections with an emphasis on evidence-based practices and program/policy evaluation.

Gaylene S. Armstrong is director of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research focuses on criminal justice program and policy evaluation, specifically within correctional environments.

References

Agnew

(2005). Why do criminals offend? A general theory of crime and delinquency. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Arditti

J. A.

(2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. New York: New York University Press.

Arditti

J. A.

Smock

S. A.

Parkman

T. S.

(2005). “It’s been hard to be a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering, 3, 267-288.

Armstrong

G. S.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2003). Private versus public correctional facilities: Do differences in environmental quality exist? Crime & Delinquency, 49, 542-563.

Bales

W. D.

Mears

(2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 287-321.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bentler

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

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.

Boyd

C. J.

(1989). Mothers and daughters: A discussion of theory and research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 291-301.

10.

Brunton-Smith

McCarthy

D. J.

(2016). The effects of prisoner attachment to family on re-entry outcomes: A longitudinal assessment. The British Journal of Criminology, 57, 463-482.

11.

Burgess

R. L.

Akers

R. L.

(1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 128-147.

12.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Owen

L. D.

(2008). Romantic partners’ influence on men’s likelihood of arrest in early adulthood. Criminology, 46, 267-298.

13.

Carson

E. A.

Anderson

(2016). Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

14.

Casey-Acevedo

Bakken

(2002). Visiting women in prison: Who visits and who cares? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 67-84.

15.

Christian

(2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 31-48.

16.

Christian

Mellow

Thomas

(2006). Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 443-452.

17.

Clear

T. R.

(2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

18.

Cobbina

J. E.

Huebner

B. M.

Berg

M. T.

(2012). Men, women, and post release offending: An examination of the nature of the link between relational ties and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 331-361.

19.

Cochran

J. C.

(2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationships between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 433-440.

20.

Cochran

J. C.

(2014). Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 51, 200-229.

21.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 252-261.

22.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2017). Who gets visited in prison? Individual- and community-level disparities in inmate visitation experiences. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 545-568.

23.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

Stewart

E. A.

(2016). Spatial distance, community disadvantage, and racial and ethnic variation in prison inmate access to social ties. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 53, 220-254.

24.

Comfort

(2003). In the tube at San Quentin: The secondary prisonization of women visiting Inmates. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32, 77-107.

25.

Duncan

H. E.

Balbar

(2008). Evaluation of a visitation program at a Canadian penitentiary. The Prison Journal, 88, 300-327.

26.

Durose

M. R.

Cooper

A. D.

Snyder

H. N.

(2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (NCJ 244205). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

27.

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.

28.

Ellwood

D. T.

Jencks

(2004). The spread of single-parent families in the United States since 1960 (KSG Working Paper No. RWP04-008). doi:10.2139/ssrn.517662

29.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ 222984). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

30.

Gover

A. R.

Styve

G. J.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 450-467.

31.

Gunnison

Helfgott

J. B.

(2011). Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A view from community corrections officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 287-304.

32.

Hagan

Dinovitzer

(1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 26, 121-162.

33.

Hairston

C. F.

(1995). Fathers in prison. In Gabel

Johnston

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 31-40). San Francisco, CA: Lexington Books.

34.

Harper

C. C.

McLanahan

S. S.

(2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 369-397.

35.

Harrison

Schehr

R. C.

(2004). Offenders and post-release jobs: Variables influencing success and failure. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39, 35-68.

36.

Bentler

(1989). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

37.

Hymowitz

(2012, December 3). The real, complex connection between single-parent families and crime. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/

38.

King

R. D.

Massoglia

MacMillian

(2007). The context of marriage and crime: Gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology, 45, 33-65.

39.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301-325.

40.

La Vigne

Kachnowski

. (2005). Texas prisoners’ reflections on returning home. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

41.

La Vigne

Naser

R. L.

Brooks

L. E.

Castro

J. L

. (2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314-335.

42.

La Vigne

Visher

Castro

. (2004). Chicago prisoners’ reflections on returning home. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

43.

Listwan

S. J.

Colvin

Hanley

Flannery

(2010). Victimization, social support, and psychological well-being: A study of recently released prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1140-1159.

44.

Lopoo

L. M.

Western

(2005). Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 721-734.

45.

Lutze

F. E.

Rosky

J. W.

Hamilton

Z. K.

(2014). Homelessness and reentry: A multisite outcome evaluation of Washington State’s reentry housing program for high risk offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 471-491.

46.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.

47.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Wilson

D. B.

Armstrong

G. S.

Gover

A. R.

(2001). The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents: Perception, adjustment, and change. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 279-313.

48.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

49.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

(2015). Prisoner reentry in the era of mass incarceration. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

50.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

Siennick

S. E.

Bales

W. D.

(2012). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29, 888-918.

51.

Morani

N. M.

Wikoff

Linhorst

Bratton

(2011). A description of the self-identified needs, service expenditures, and social outcomes of participants of a prisoner-reentry program. The Prison Journal, 91, 347-365.

52.

Mowen

T. J.

Visher

C. A.

(2013). Drug use and crime after incarceration: The role of family support and family conflict. Justice Quarterly, 32, 337-359.

53.

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.

54.

Nelson

Deess

Allen

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

55.

Pager

(2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937-975.

56.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

57.

Rocque

Bierie

D. M.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2011). Social bonds and change during incarceration: Testing a missing link in the reentry research. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 816-838.

58.

Roman

C. G.

Travis

(2006). Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner. Housing Policy Debate, 17, 389-418.

59.

Rowland

Thomas

(1996). Mothering sons: A crucial feminist challenge. Feminism & Psychology, 6, 93-99.

60.

Roy

K. M.

Dyson

O. L.

(2005). Gatekeeping in context: Babymama drama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers. Fathering, 3, 289-310.

61.

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.

62.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

Wimer

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

63.

Siennick

S. E.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2013). Here and gone: Anticipation and separation effects of prison visits on inmate infractions. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 417-444.

64.

Snell

T. L.

(1994). Women in prison (NCJ 145321). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

65.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2008). Inmate versus environmental effects on prison rule violation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 438-456.

66.

Sturges

J. E.

Al-Khattar

A. M.

(2009). Survey of jail visitors about visitation policies. The Prison Journal, 89, 482-496.

67.

Styve

G. J.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Gover

Mitchell

(2000). Perceived conditions of confinement: A national evaluation of boot camps and traditional facilities. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 297-308.

68.

Sullivan

Mino

Nelson

Pope

(2002). Families as a resource in recovery from drug abuse: An evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

69.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

70.

Tewksbury

DeMichele

(2005). Going to prison: A prison visitation program. The Prison Journal, 85, 292-310.

71.

Turanovic

J. J.

Rodriguez

Pratt

T. C.

(2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50, 913-959.

72.

Uggen

Wakefield

Western

(2005). Work and family perspectives on reentry. In Travis

Visher

(Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 209-243). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

73.

Visher

C. A.

O’Connell

D. J.

(2012). Incarceration and inmates’ self-perceptions about returning home. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 386-393.

74.

Visher

C. A.

Travis

(2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.

75.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1999). Inmate experiences and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 235-250.