Abstract
Qualitative data from16 offenders were analyzed to understand the process of reintegration from their perspective. The offenders identified six factors that they felt influenced their ability to reintegrate and desist from crime: (1) substance abuse; (2) employment; (3) family support; (4) types of friends; (5) personal motivation to change; and (6) age. A large majority indicated that drug abuse was a major contributor to their criminal activities. Most said supports from family, friends, and treatment services were important for successful reintegration. Those who were successful tended to have both a personal desire to change and a support system that helped them reintegrate and desist from drug use and crime. Support had more impact among those who desired to change and those who received support were more likely to perceive that change is possible.
A major global change during the past 25 years has been an increase in the number of people who are incarcerated (Farrington et al., 2004). To illustrate, Lynch and Pridemore (2011) examined incarceration rates between 1999 and 2008 and found that the incarceration rate in the United States increased 12 percent compared to increases of 20 percent, 23 percent, and 48 percent in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Japan, respectively.
Ninety-five percent of all prison and jail inmates will be released to reintegrate into communities (Petersilia, 2005). One of the most profound challenges facing societies today is the reintegration of so many prisoners (Maruna, 2011; Petersilia, 2003).
Reintegration is difficult for many offenders because they face a variety of challenges simultaneously (Maruna et al., 2004; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009). First, many have difficulty finding employment because they tend to be uneducated and have few job skills (Seiter and Kadela, 2003). Second, some have serious social, mental health, and medical problems and many have little family and community support (Petersilia, 2003). Third, upon release they experience the added stigma of a criminal record (Pager, 2003). Fourth, many of the attitudes and skills learned while incarcerated are not helpful for adjusting to life outside of prison. Not only are prison and jail different from the world outside but often the world they return to is quite different from their world before incarceration.
A better understanding of the reintegration process would enable professionals, friends, and family members to help more offenders adjust to life outside of prison and learn to desist from further criminal activity. Although there has been extensive research on recidivism, there has been much less study of the processes of reintegration and desistance after incarceration (Healy and O’Donnell, 2008; Hedderman et al., 2011; Petersilia, 2000, 2003; Steen and Opsal, 2007; Visher and Travis, 2003).
The purpose of this research is to explore the process of reintegration from the perspective of probationers and parolees. Using qualitative interviews, we examine offenders’ own stories and discover what they feel was and was not helpful in their own reintegration, whether it was formal programming, help from probation or parole officers, or informal resources from family and friends. The objective is to extend recent qualitative work that has explored the process of reintegration (Clancy et al., 2006; Healy and O’Donnell, 2008; Maruna, 2001; Maruna and Immarigeon, 2004; Shapland and Bottoms, 2011; Terry, 2003). There is a need for additional research which examines the perspectives of offenders themselves. The major question we examine in this research is: What factors make it more likely an offender will reintegrate successfully and desist from crime?
Jails, Prisons, Probation, and Parole
It is important to clarify the difference between prisons and jails and between probation and parole. In the United States convicted offenders with sentences of more than a year are usually sent to prison while those with sentences of a year or less serve their time in jail. Most inmates are released prior to the completion of their sentence and are put on probation or parole subject to their compliance with certain conditions.
Probationers and parolees are similar in that both have been convicted of an offense, have spent a period of time incarcerated, and then are allowed to be released into the community to complete the last part of their sentence. The difference is that those on probation have spent a shorter period of time incarcerated. Common conditions of probation and parole include visiting a probation or parole officer regularly, paying assessed fines, obtaining employment, attending treatment, taking a urinalysis regularly, not associating with other felons, not leaving the state, not possessing a firearm, submitting to searches of one’s residence, and not possessing or using illegal substances. Other countries may not distinguish between jail and prison or between probation and parole as is done in the United States. However, offenders in other countries are similar in that they go through a process of reintegration after being released from incarceration (Lynch and Pridemore, 2011).
The Process of Reintegration
We define reintegration as the process of transitioning from incarceration to the community, adjusting to life outside of prison or jail, and attempting to maintain a crime-free lifestyle (Laub and Sampson, 2001, 2003). Reintegration is a complex process that occurs over time and there is much we do not know about the process (Healy and O’Donnell, 2008; Maruna, 2001; Maruna and Toch, 2005; Petersilia, 2005; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009).
We view desistance as a developmental process in which one maintains a state of non-offending (Laub and Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 2001). Although desistance is part of the reintegration process, it is not synonymous with reintegration. One could desist from crime and still have difficulty adjusting to life outside of prison (LeBel et al., 2008; McNeill, 2006).
Maruna et al. (2004) distinguished between primary and secondary desistance. Primary desistance refers to the immediate move away from criminal behavior, such as when an offender remains drug free for two months. Secondary desistance refers to the long-term abstinence from crime among individuals who previously were persistent offenders (Maruna, 2001). It is becoming a law abiding person on a permanent basis and requires maintenance over time rather than just short-term change. Desistance emerges as one gradually develops a new identity and becomes a changed person (Healy and O’Donnell, 2008; Maruna and Toch, 2005).
Understanding desistance requires a different perspective than much of the theorizing in criminology. Rather than focusing on why people commit crime, the focus is on how former offenders stop committing crime and avoid continued involvement in criminal behavior (Maruna et al., 2004). Understanding how offenders move from a state of offending to non-offending is a different process than explaining why individuals initiate crime. It is one thing to stop offending for a few months and quite another to remain in a crime-free state over an extended period of time (Maruna, 2001; Rumgay, 2004).
Recently scholars have attempted to develop frameworks to help understand the desistance process more fully (Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Bushway et al., 2001; Maruna et al., 2004; McNeill, 2006). We identified two theoretical perspectives that we found to be helpful in understanding the processes of reintegration and desistance from crime, life course theory and cognitive transformation theory. We now turn to a brief review of each of those theories.
Life course theory
According to life course theory, desistance depends on both subjective factors and social influences. Subjective factors are internal characteristics such as attitudes, self-esteem, identity, and motivation. Social influences include employment, marriage, parenthood, friends, and treatment interventions. Social networks provide structure and opportunities for law abiding behavior and enable offenders to ‘knife off’ or insulate themselves from the deviant environment and develop new scripts for their future (Maruna and LeBel, 2010). A key element of the life course perspective is a focus on change and maintenance over time rather than on the initial change in behavior. Existing research indicates that offenders who recidivate tend to lack the connective social structures that help one sustain a crime-free lifestyle (Byrne and Trew, 2008; Zamble and Quinsey, 1997).
Laub and Sampson (2001, 2003) focused on social factors and emphasized the importance of structured routine activities and social controls. However, they acknowledged that internal factors also play a significant role in desistance. Laub and Sampson (2001) suggested that change is most likely when offenders have the desire to change, view change as possible, and have social support for change. Creating bonds with family members and friends can also help individuals desist from crime. Conversely, associations with deviant peers may appeal to individuals who are unsuccessful in developing meaningful relationships at home or work.
Some scholars emphasize subjective influences and maintain that change will not occur unless offenders have an internal motivation to change (Gideon, 2010). Others focus on the social context and argue that motivation to change will have little influence unless the social circumstances of offenders support their desistance (Laub and Sampson, 2001). LeBel et al. (2008) found support for a combined subjective-social model in which desistance is associated with both types of factors. They suggested that desistance appears to be enhanced when treatment is combined with high subjective motivation.
Cognitive transformation theory
According to the cognitive transformation theory of Giordano et al. (2002), there are four key elements in the desistance process. First, they hypothesized that individuals develop an openness to change in which they begin to conceive of personal change as a possibility. Some offenders like their life as it is and do not wish to change; others say they would like to change and are willing to attempt to change their behavior. In a study of 73 offenders, Healy and O’Donnell (2008) found that 95 percent desired to change and 85 percent said they were capable of changing. Similarly, in the Oxford Recidivism Study, Burnett (2004) reported that 80 percent said they wanted to go straight although only 25 percent thought they would definitely be able to go straight.
Second, individuals are exposed to particular circumstances or ‘hooks’ that may help them move toward change. Hooks for change include social characteristics such as obtaining a good job or attending a treatment program (Giordano et al., 2002). Laub and Sampson (2001) emphasized the importance of social institutions, especially marriage and work, as forces that influence the desistance process. Maruna (2001) observed that drug treatment and employment stability were important steps in the desistance process.
The third element in their desistance theory is the development of a conventional replacement self. Offenders begin to see themselves in a different light and attempt to change their identity. For example, Shapland and Bottoms (2011) reported that offenders who wanted to change often saw themselves as different people now who no longer wanted to be involved in crime. Burnett (2004) identified individuals who saw themselves as ‘converts’ who had transformed their lives.
Finally, there is a reinterpretation of previous illegal behavior. Those previously involved in illegal activities begin to view it as something that hurts people and that they want to avoid. In the Sheffield Desistance Study, Shapland and Bottoms (2011) observed former offenders who saw themselves as different people now. Similarly, Burnett (2004) reported that some offenders defined their previous crime as an anomaly that was not reflective of their real selves.
Terry (2003) described desistance as a conversion process that takes a considerable amount of time. He observed that the process often begins when an event helps individuals reassess their lives. Maruna (2001) also argued that desistance requires a reformulation of one’s identity. After analyzing in-depth interviews of ‘desisters’ and ‘persisters’, he observed that desisters tended to describe redemption narratives in which they viewed their ‘real selves’ as non-criminals. They differentiated themselves from their previous mistakes, crafted a moral tale from their experiences, and expressed a desire to use their experiences to help others (Maruna, 2001). Similarly, Rumgay (2004) and Shover (1996) found that desisters were able to conceive of change as possible and alter their perceptions of their previous activities.
Factors Affecting Reintegration
A review of these theories and existing literature suggested six factors that we expected were important in the process of reintegration and successful desistance from crime: substance abuse; employment; family support; type of friends; motivation to change; and age. All have been found in research to be associated with recidivism although there have been some conflicting findings and the nature and magnitude of the associations vary. A major goal of this research is to gain a more complete understanding of how offenders perceive these six variables to be relevant in their lives. Table 1 shows a summary of each of these factors and how they are expected to influence reintegration.
Criminogenic factors from theories and the literature.
Substance abuse
Substance abuse was chosen because of the pervasiveness of drug abuse among offenders. Among prison inmates in the United States, 73 percent used drugs regularly prior to their incarceration (Petersilia, 2005). At the time inmates committed their latest offense, 50 percent were under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Karberg and James, 2005). Drug offenders comprise an increasing proportion of probation, prison, and parole populations (Blumstein and Beck, 2005).
Large numbers of those released from prison are rearrested and returned to prison, often because of their inability to refrain from substance abuse (Blumstein and Beck, 2005; Terry, 2003). Qualitative research in the United Kingdom and Canada also found that drug abuse was a major factor in recidivism (Maruna, 2001; Zamble and Quinsey, 1997).
Life course theory helps explain drug abuse because individuals rarely take drugs by themselves. Relapse usually occurs while associating with others who are using drugs. Weak bonds to family members and law abiding peers increase the risk of returning to substance abuse. In addition, there appear to be reciprocal influences in that substance abuse tends to increase associations with individuals who are not law abiding and weaken bonds to family members and law abiding friends.
Employment
Those who are employed tend to have less recidivism than those who are not employed, although the research findings vary (Sampson and Laub, 2001; Uggen, 2000; Uggen et al., 2005). As suggested by life course theory, individuals who are not employed lack the social integration gained from employment (Kazemian, 2007; Morizot and Le Blanc, 2007). Through full-time work, offenders may develop bonds with law abiding employees and become dependent on a paycheck. Temptations to participate in illegal behavior may be constrained by the potential loss of their job and paycheck.
Work may increase associations with law abiding peers, leave less time for associations with deviant peers, and increase bonds to conventional society. Informal social controls are a part of work because of responsibilities and monitoring that occur in the workplace. Research in both the United Kingdom and the United States indicates that employment stability is an important factor in maintaining desistance (Laub and Sampson, 2003; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Zamble and Quinsey, 1997).
Family
Laub and Sampson (2003) maintained that the development of bonds with family members may help individuals desist from crime. The association with deviant peers may be more appealing to individuals who do not have meaningful family relationships. The lack of satisfying relationships leaves individuals more susceptible to the influence of deviant peers (Bahr et al., 2010; Morizot and Le Blanc, 2007). Marriage and children may create bonds that increase the costs of law violations and increase the motivation to avoid illegal activities. Several scholars have confirmed that support from family members is associated with lower recidivism rates (Farrall, 2004; Laub and Sampson, 1998; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Zamble and Quinsey, 1997).
Friends
One of the most consistent findings in the literature is that peers have a strong influence on the onset and persistence of criminal behavior (Elliott and Menard, 1996; Rebellon et al., 2008). Recent research confirms that a shift away from friends who are involved in crime is one element in the desistance process (Byrne and Trew, 2008). Law abiding friends tend to provide law abiding models, reinforcement for law abiding behaviors, and discouragement of illegal attitudes and activities. In addition, associations with law abiding friends may result in the development of bonds which constrain illegal activity (Laub and Sampson, 2003; Shapland and Bottoms, 2011; Zamble and Quinsey, 1997).
The transition from prison to the community is a vulnerable time when individuals may be susceptible to the influences of deviant peers (Agnew, 2005). Individuals who are lonely and lack law abiding friends may be particularly likely to succumb to offers from drug-using friends (Bahr et al., 2010). Marriage and employment may alter networks such that individuals spend less time associating with deviant friends and more time associating with law abiding persons (Giordano et al., 2002; Laub and Sampson, 2001; Warr, 1998). As a result, those who obtain a job or have family support may have a decrease in the number of and amount of time spent with deviant peers. With fewer friends to encourage and reward deviant behavior, motivation for committing crime may diminish (Maruna and Toch, 2005; Schroeder et al., 2007; Warr, 2002).
Motivation
Some scholars maintain that change will not occur unless offenders have an internal motivation to change (Gideon, 2010). Others argue that motivation to change will have little impact unless the social circumstances of offenders support their desistance (Laub and Sampson, 2001). In their cognitive transformation theory, Giordano et al. (2002) asserted that existing theories are incomplete because they have ignored the role of choice and internal characteristics such as motivation. LeBel et al. (2008) found support for a combined subjective-social model in which desistance is associated with both internal motivation and external social forces. Similarly, Shapland and Bottoms (2011) noted that a desire to change was a key component in their desistance model. Finally, Maruna and LeBel (2010) proposed a paradigm in which desistance is a relational process that includes motivation along with support for others.
Age
Although age is one of the most consistent correlates of crime, it is not clear how age is associated with desistance (Blokland and Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Healy and O’Donnell, 2008; Stolzenberg and D’Alessio, 2008). As offenders age, their ability and motivation for illegal activities may wane, especially at key turning points such as a health crisis or the transition out of prison. Terry (2003) observed that as the prison population was replaced with younger offenders, older offenders felt less comfortable in prison and no longer had their self-concepts bolstered while they were in prison. Thus, their bonds to and status in prison decreased over time. Health problems became more common as they got older and they had to face their physical limitations. In addition, as they aged some became more aware of how their behavior hurt their family members. Finally, age is likely to alter perceptions, associations, and bonds. Qualitative data are needed to help understand better how offenders’ perceptions change as they age.
Methods
Sample
The primary sample for this analysis consisted of 16 offenders who were involved in classes at a day reporting center in a western state in the USA. All were former prisoners who had spent time in jail or prison and were required to attend the classes. We attended classes at the center, explained that the purpose of our study was to understand adjustment after being in jail or prison, and asked for volunteers. We emphasized that we had no formal association with the local Adult Probation and Parole and that our objective was to gain a better understanding from their experience of what does and does not help them adjust successfully.
Because the purpose of the research was to understand perceptions of offenders, sampling was intended to capture a range of voices and relevant experiences among offenders. Therefore, the results may not generalize to probationers and parolees in other areas. However, the findings provide a detailed view of the experiences and opinions of the offenders involved. The characteristics of those interviewed matched well with the composition of adult parolees in the state. There were 14 males and two females, their ages ranged from 25 to 48 (median = 35), and all were white. Their offenses included assault, theft, driving under the influence, drug possession, and drug sales. All reported some type of drug or alcohol abuse in the past or present. A summary of their characteristics is given in Table 2. As shown in column 4 of Table 2, seven of the respondents had been in prison and were on parole, while the remaining nine respondents were probationers who had been in jail but not prison. The day reporting center did not differentiate between the probationers and parolees in terms of the required classes and supervision, and we observed no discernible differences between the two groups.
Description of sample.
Notes:
1 = in jail three times or less and never in prison; 2 = in jail four or more times but never in prison; 3 = in prison at least once.
GED = Did not graduate from high school but later passed a high school equivalency test; HS = graduated from high school but no further; AS = earned an associate degree; BS = earned a bachelor’s degree. For those who did not complete high school, we listed the number of years they attended school.
Procedures
Interviews were conducted from January to August of 2009 by the first author with the assistance of several undergraduate sociology students. One sociology student attended each interview to take notes. The undergraduate students received training in qualitative research before participating in the interviews. Interviews were conducted as a guided conversation rather than as a question–answer session, bringing up relevant topics while still allowing participants to speak their thoughts freely and comfortably. Interviews lasted from 30 to 90 minutes and all were audio recorded with the exception of a jail interview where audio recorders were not allowed.
All participants received $20 compensation for their time. Each interview was transcribed, coded, and then searched for recurring themes. The qualitative analysis program NVIVO was used to analyze the data (Bazeley, 2007). General topics included background information, reintegration, drugs and alcohol, employment, family, friends, motivation, and age.
During the interview we explored pre-prison life, prison life, and experiences after prison. In the pre-prison section we asked the research participants about their childhood and family, how they got involved in crime, and the nature of their crimes. Then we asked about their experiences in prison and how they were affected by them. Finally, we asked about life after prison or jail, including major turning points, drug use, family, and employment. Throughout the interview we explored what helped them desist from crime as well as any problem areas. This included questions about drug use, drug use attitudes, drug treatment, and how drug use impacted them.
Supplemental data
The qualitative data were supplemented with interviews conducted with 51 parolees shortly after release from prison in late fall of 2004. The purpose of using this data set was to provide quantitative data to confirm and extend the qualitative findings. All of the 51 respondents were interviewed within a week after release from prison and tracked for three years to determine how many were rearrested and returned to prison. They had an age range of 22 to 56 with a median of 34 and eight (16%) of the respondents were women. Thirty-eight (75%) said they were white, eight identified themselves as Latino, one was Asian, and four were ‘other’. Forty-three (84%) had graduated from high school or received their GED and only one (2%) had graduated from college. Three-fourths (37) were parents and the number of children ranged from 1 to 6 with a median of 2. Thirty-six (71%) had been married but only eight (16%) were currently married. The 51 parolees were similar to the US parole population on several demographic characteristics although it had a higher proportion of women, fewer minorities, and was somewhat more educated.
Results
Pre-prison life
We began the interviews by trying to get to know as much as possible about the offenders and their past. We wanted to hear their life stories – their upbringing, schooling, and how they got started into crime. Although our focus is on reintegration, some knowledge of pre-prison life is helpful in understanding the social context of reintegration.
Seven respondents mentioned they got their start in crime because of their parents or siblings. In those cases, alcohol and drugs tended to be part of their family at an early age. Tyson noted,
I first started drinking when I was … well as far back as I can remember, even eight years old. We’d go camping with my dad and he’d say ‘you can have a beer’. Being a little kid, that was cool … when I got older, I just stole it from him. Alcohol has always been in the family.
Paul also was young when he got started with drugs – his mother was a crack dealer and was in and out of prison during his entire life. He can remember smoking pot with her as early as age eight or nine.
It is not surprising that those who grew up surrounded by drugs and alcohol started using drugs at an early age and became dependent on drugs. However, several of the respondents came from families in which no one used alcohol or drugs or engaged in criminal activity. Three of them claimed that their strict parents drove them to rebellion and eventually to disobey the law. Another felt that he had too little direction – Jon blamed his parents’ absence for his start into crime. He said they were never home, so he was bored and had too much freedom.
For others, blame was not placed on any person but rather on circumstances that drove them to alcohol or drugs. Richard realized this during the interview,
You know I’m sitting here and it just now dawned on me. I never sat down and thought about it but it was after, when my marriage fell apart. Really! You know, I never really blamed it on that but that’s when I really got involved in harder drugs and stuff.
Richard had his daughter taken away from him by his ex-wife and has never seen her again. Crystal had a similar experience with divorce, loss of a child, and then substance abuse:
My oldest boy [Ricky], his dad was my high school sweetheart. We were together forever. When [Ricky] was about three, he had been seeing this girl and got her pregnant and called me up at work and told me. I said something really stupid, I didn’t mean it, I was just hurt and my bubble had been busted. I mean he was my first love. I said just run off with your illegitimate kid because you’re not going to see your legitimate kid anymore, blah blah blah. He came to get him a couple days later and took off with him, stole him. Back then they didn’t have Amber laws. It cost a lot of money for a private investigator, so I looked for him for about three years traveling around in my car. I got a bunch of good leads but it seemed like he was always one step ahead of me. After about three years it seemed like he just dropped off the face of the planet, and that is when I started drinking.
Only two respondents said they purposely chose crime. They craved the excitement and wanted to rebel. Morgan started smoking because others already thought he did:
I just always had the reputation that I got high even though I never had. So when the time came somebody handed me a pipe, it was like ok, everybody already thinks I do. I might as well do it.
Both of the females did not get into drugs until around age 30. When asked to describe the factors that influenced their start into crime, both said divorce and subsequent depression were the primary reasons. This was different from the males who tended to start breaking the law much earlier in life, mostly because of the influence of friends or family members.
Substance abuse
Almost all of the participants said that their major problems can be linked to using drugs and alcohol. They were asked the question, ‘On a scale from 1–10, 10 being the highest, 1 being the lowest, how would you rank the influence of drugs and alcohol on your experiences with crime?’ Ten participants said a 10, two gave a 9, two gave an 8, one gave a 5 and one said zero. The participant who responded zero had some substance abuse charges but maintained that he is just rebellious by nature and loves to steal. He said that whether or not drugs and alcohol existed, he would have found a way to get in trouble with the law.
Most said, however, that if drugs and alcohol did not exist, they would not have committed the crimes. Their charges tended to be drug and alcohol related, the most common being driving under the influence, possession of an illegal substance, or drug sales. Those without drug charges admitted that their crimes were committed to obtain drugs or as a result of being high or drunk. For example, Paul said,
98% of it I wouldn’t have on my record if it wasn’t for drugs or alcohol. I’m sure I would have gotten a few curfew tickets back then as a kid, but stealing a vehicle or going on a cop chase for two-and-a-half hours high off my butt. If I were sober, I just wouldn’t think of going and stealing a car and going on a cop chase.
Other remarks reflective of this pattern include:
It’s where the root of all my problems have come from – is alcohol. The things that are keeping me straight right now is: number one that I’m not heavily drinking or into drugs anymore. Almost 100 percent of my trouble was drugs and alcohol related. Without those, I wouldn’t be where I was. The drugs was the biggest thing. All my crimes are either drugs or drug related for sure.
The qualitative responses are consistent with the quantitative results from the 51 parolees. Although only 26 percent were incarcerated for a drug offense, 82 percent said that drugs contributed to their latest incarceration. Forty-eight (94%) admitted that they currently or previously had a drug problem.
Being able to abstain from drug use was a major factor in desisting from crime. Furthermore, the responses from the supplemental sample illustrated the value of drug education and treatment in helping the offenders desist from drug use and further crime. Among the 51 parolees, those who took a substance abuse class while they were in prison were almost six times more likely to succeed at parole.
Employment
Several respondents felt that employment helped them to stay clean and out of trouble, as illustrated by the following quotations:
Having money coming from an honest source gives me a way to support my family and I don’t have to look for alternative methods of doing so, like I was before selling drugs. Employment always helps keep you out of crime ’cause if you’ve got a good job, you’ve got something you can look forward to everyday.
Morgan expressed it this way, ‘If I didn’t have a job, I’d be bored to death. I’d be at the liquor store at 10 o’clock waitin’ for it to open, so I can pass the day really quickly because time flies when you’re incoherent.’
Surprisingly, few participants reported trouble in finding a job and only one was unemployed. Tyson noted,
I think that’s a bunch of crap, when felons go, ‘oh it’s so hard for me to find a job’. No it’s not. I mean it may not be that scientist or architect job that you wanted, you’re not going to get that, but it’s not hard for you to find a job. You can find one; you just don’t want the job that is in front of you.
Some said employment did not help them avoid drugs and crime. For example, Elliot said that his job assisted his drug habit, ‘I got back into drugs … I kept a job all the time – a really good job working as a mechanic, so I always had lots of money and could buy me really fancy tools and lots of dope.’
Paul maintained that drugs did not have an effect on his job performance but helped him get through his day:
So you had the same job when you were using and when you’ve been clean?
Yeah.
Was it hard to do your job when you were using?
No, heck no. I loved it, I was high!
Tyson recounts his experience:
If I got drunk the night before I’d wake up and do some cocaine or I’d do some meth or something to keep me up and going and when the stimulant worked off, I’d smoke pot or on lunch break go do a few more lines. I had a system of how to do drugs and stay going at work and not kill myself or hurt other people. It was scary. I look back on it now and go wow, I’m surprised I didn’t die.
Certain types of employment may be more conducive to drug abuse than others and earnings from employment can be used to purchase drugs. The data from the 51 parolees support this conclusion. Recidivism was not associated with employment status but among those who were employed, recidivism was associated with the number of hours worked. Sixty-three percent of those who worked at least 40 hours per week successfully completed their parole three years after release, compared to only 10 percent of those who worked less than 40 hours per week.
Family
The data indicate that families can either help or hinder the process of reintegration. Elliot reported:
The way I was brought up with my dad really strict … I think that may have had a major contributing factor of me being so rebellious and not really caring when I got older. I know that the way I was brought up contributes a lot to my mental status right now as I am on depression and anxiety medication that seems to be majorly contributed to the way I was brought up.
Others mentioned how helpful their parents were to them. For example, Jason said:
Everyday my mom calls me and asks me how things are going, what my stress levels are. She’s the first person I call when something stupid happens. There’s been a few times when I’ve had her come get me because I didn’t like the situation I was in.
Several mentioned their children were a motivation to change. Jon said:
I’ve got responsibilities. I’ve got children. I need to take care of my children, they’re my #1 first and foremost responsibility and if I’m in jail, I’m not doing them any good. I want my kids to look up to me and be proud of what they have as a father.
Morgan mentioned that his son was the only thing that changed him, not necessarily out of love, but out of fear that his son would learn about his use: ‘I got to thinking there’s no way that he can find out that I’m doing this. It was kinda a paranoid thing. I didn’t want him to know.’
However, others said that if you don’t want to change, kids won’t change you. Paul, who has eight children, said:
People were telling me, ‘if you don’t want to change, you’re not going to change’ and I’m like, ‘no I’m going to change for my kids or I’m going to do this for my kids’. It didn’t work, even for the love of my life, my kids. I still wouldn’t change, still couldn’t do it. I mean I couldn’t honestly do it until I wanted to, until I was sick of looking at myself that way.
Jason mentioned that some families help their kids when they shouldn’t:
their family helps them out too much so they don’t feel the pain that a lot of us do. A lot of my buddies have escaped jail because their families would pay for really good lawyers. So their families were totally enabling them.
Tyson said that his mother used to enable his drug addiction before by giving him money but after a while they just let him go to jail, which in his opinion was the best thing for him.
Two others mentioned that when their families gave up on them, they had to find a substitute family – in AA or in a group of friends. Richard, whose family lives in a different state said his family has totally given up on him. When he would get out of jail he always had to rely on his old friends for housing, food, support, and rides. He would want to become clean, but since he had to rely on his friends in the counter culture for resources, it was nearly impossible for him to get out of bad situations and resist temptations.
The data from the 51 parolees confirmed the complex nature of family relationships and how they may help or hinder attempts to desist from crime. On the one hand, neither marriage nor parenthood was associated with recidivism. Several unsuccessful parolees mentioned that romantic partners and family members encouraged them to use drugs or placed them in compromising situations. On the other hand, successful parolees said that family members helped them during critical times and that they would not have made it without their support.
Friends
The data indicated that good friends have a positive influence and bad friends have a negative influence on desistance. Most respondents said that it is critical not to hang out with the friends they associated with earlier. ‘No matter what, stay away from all them old friends’, cautions Jason. Morgan emphasized that the key to success is to, ‘just stay away from old friends’. After 14 years of coming in and out of jail, Paul said the only thing that got him clean was his girlfriend who said she’d kick him out if he ever used.
Avoiding old influences or ‘selective involvement’ is a common risk reduction strategy for avoiding crime (Abrams, 2006; Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Shapland and Bottoms, 2011). If offenders hang out with people who use and are in situations where alcohol and drugs are used, it will be difficult for them to resist temptations and abstain from drug abuse.
The data from the 51 parolees were consistent with this conclusion. At the initial interview, 90 percent of those who were later rearrested mentioned the difficulty they had staying away from old friends compared to only 21 percent of those who later completed parole successfully (p < .01). Those who were later rearrested had fewer friends and expressed more loneliness. This appeared to make them more vulnerable to opportunities to associate with friends who were using drugs. For example, one recidivist stated, ‘They’re the reason, the product of why I’m here today. I followed in their footsteps.’ Another said he felt uncomfortable being away from his prison friends so he started hanging out with them and started drinking and using meth again. In contrast, successful parolees said they made a conscious effort to stay away from old friends and were able to make new friends who helped them.
Motivation
Motivation is a factor that came up repeatedly in the interviews, as illustrated by Patrick:
Out of your friends or the people that you’ve seen who are trying to stay clean, what’s the difference between those who can do it and those who can’t?
Um, it’s honestly just how bad you want it. I mean if you really want a better life, there’s no class you can take, there’s no program, there’s nothing your PO or judges can say that’s going to make you stay clean. It’s just how bad you want it.
If desistance from crime really is dependent on ‘just how bad you want it,’ then the question becomes, how do offenders get to the point where they want it bad enough? Patrick continues, ‘I guess that comes down to how far you’ve sunk, how bad you’ve hit rock bottom. If it’s completely broken you and you’ve decided that’s enough.’ Others suggested that programs, jail, children, family, and friends were influences that helped them get to that point.
The interviews with the 51 parolees also demonstrated the importance of motivation. At the initial interviews many of the successful parolees commented on how they had changed and were motivated to keep their parole requirements. Their later success was evidence of this internal motivation. On the other hand, at the initial interview most of the unsuccessful parolees did not have confidence in their ability to stay away from drugs or fulfill their other probation or parole requirements. In later interviews after they had been rearrested, they mentioned giving in to old friends who kept calling and asking them to come hang out.
Age
As individuals get older, they may grow tired of going in and out of jail and decide to change. Laub and Sampson (2003) suggested that there may be ‘natural sanctions’ to criminal behavior which become more obvious as one gets older. As losses accumulate over time, offenders may begin to see the consequences of their behavior on themselves and others. Whether this is due to added responsibilities, health, or just becoming tired of the cycle of substance abuse and jail, respondents repeatedly mentioned getting older as a factor in desistance from crime.
The following quotations illustrate this:
The reason why I’m not wanting to get back into this criminal aspect of my life is because number one, I’m too old for this shit. I think it’s because I’m getting older – I’m tired of going to jail, I’m tired of being in jail. It’s gotta be kept under control ’cause I’m not a little kid anymore. It was just time. I made up my mind that it was time, and I was done.
Discussion
The findings provide glimpses into the minds of offenders and their perceptions of why they got involved in crime and what helps them desist from drug use and crime. Their perceptions affirm that drug abuse, employment, family, friends, motivation, and age are all factors that influence the desistance process. In this section we review several insights that emerged from the interviews.
Substance abuse
Most respondents said that if it were not for drugs, they would not have become involved in illegal activities. Descriptions of how they got involved in crime clearly demonstrated the role of drug use in their criminal involvement. These findings provide additional evidence of the power of drug dependence and the importance of drug prevention and treatment programs in reducing recidivism rates.
Employment
There were two surprising findings regarding employment. First, most of the respondents said it was not difficult to find employment. This appears to be inconsistent with other research in the literature and may be unique to our sample. Second, several respondents reported that employment was not a deterrent to drug use – they were able to use drugs and continue to hold down a job. Perhaps the atmosphere in some types of jobs is more conducive to substance abuse than it is among other types of employment.
Although work may not deter one from drug use and crime, it can provide the opportunity to develop associations with others who are law abiding and can help support attempts to reframe one’s identity. Laub and Sampson (2003) concluded that full-time work may be important if it leads to a change in routine activities. Parolees are in a period of transition and full-time work may help provide structure and restrict criminal opportunities. On the other hand, if parolees do not have full-time work, they will tend to have more time to ‘hang out’ with deviant peers and act on criminal tendencies.
Support from family and friends
Support is essential for successful reintegration, whether the support comes from family, friends, or programs. For instance, Jason’s experience coming out of jail was greatly assisted by his mother’s daily influence and constant support. On the other hand, when Richard’s family rejected him, he was forced to rely on former friends for money, housing, and transportation. Jason was able to successfully reintegrate and stay clean while Richard has gone through years of relapse and re-arrest.
It is common for individuals to express a strong desire to desist from crime but then to later become involved again in drugs and crime. Often their ability to desist wanes because of influences from friends and discouragement after a disappointment. Thus, support from family, law abiding friends, and treatment programs may be essential at critical decision points even among those who are highly motivated to succeed.
Statutory supervision through adult probation and parole could focus more on strengthening, coordinating with, and developing support networks of family, law abiding friends, and communities. A possible model to follow is Communities That Care which develops a network of community stake holders to assess community strengths and weaknesses and then develop a plan to maintain strengths, lessen deficiencies, and coordinate resources (Hawkins et al., 2008).
Motivation to change
The desire to change was identified as a key element in the desistance process. Whatever the catalyst for this desire – be it jail time, friends, family, or hitting rock bottom – it appears to be a requisite step in desistance from crime. Bottoms and Shapland (2011) also identified a desire to change as a key element in the desistance process. Our findings suggest that internal motivation to change and adequate social support are reinforcing. Support will have more impact among those who desire to change. And those who receive support are more likely to perceive that change is possible and to have a desire to change.
However, as illustrated by Richard, those with a strong motivation to change may fail if they don’t have a good support system. Maruna (2001) found that individuals who decide to desist from drug use and crime often lose their resolve at critical turning points when they become discouraged or are faced with temptations from friends. At these critical situations support networks may be particularly important in reinforcing their desire to change. Similarly, those with strong support from family or others may not succeed if they lack a desire to change (LeBel et al., 2008).
This suggests that internal motivation to change may interact with social influences. In previous work there has been debate about internal motivation and external social influences, as noted earlier. LeBel et al. (2008) found support for a combined subjective–social model and Bottoms and Shapland (2011) developed a useful model of desistance that included both motivation and social supports. Farrall (2004) discussed how social capital, particularly employment and family relationships, are important influences on reintegration. However, they did not explicitly discuss how the two concepts may interact to amplify or lessen the chance for successful reintegration.
We hypothesize that the two concepts interact in the following ways. First, we hypothesize that motivation has a positive association with desistance but that this association will become stronger as social support increases. Second, we predict that social support has a positive association with desistance and that this association will increase as motivation increases. In addition, our findings indicate that social support may have a positive influence on motivation. Finally, family, friends, employment, and treatment may all be viewed as different types or indicators of support. Figure 1 is a summary of our model that could be the basis for testing in future research. It illustrates graphically how motivation and social supports are mutually reinforcing, which has not been emphasized sufficiently in previous literature.
Model showing how motivation and support interact to influence desistance from crime.
The responses from our sample support this conclusion. Although many mentioned the importance of motivation in desisting from crime, they also mentioned the importance of support from family, friends, and treatment. Those who were successful at reintegration tended to be those who received treatment, obtained full-time employment, and had more support from law abiding friends and family members. Thus, the combination of motivation and social support was associated with successful reintegration.
The various types of support also influence each other. For example, treatment tends to be more effective when one has family members or friends who care about the offender. The quote from Jon illustrated how commitment to children was a motivation for him not to use drugs, while Paul said a motivation for him to stay clean was his girlfriend’s threats to kick him out if he used. Similarly, the structure and commitments of work provide reasons to stay in treatment and avoid criminal activities. And as one stays in treatment one is more able to obtain and maintain employment. Thus, as suggested by McNeill (2006), the meanings people assign to family, work, and treatment are important components in whether they are able to take advantage of support opportunities that may be available.
Age
Although it is widely known that crime tends to decrease with age, there continues to be debate about how and why age is associated with crime. The comments of these offenders provide clues to the relationship between age and desistance. First, as people age they are confronted with a decrease in their abilities – ‘I am too old for this shit.’ Sickness may help them see their limitations and that they cannot continue their lifestyle indefinitely. Second, over time they may be confronted with how their crime impacts their families and themselves. Third, going in and out of jail can be stressful and desistance is a way to reduce the stress – ‘I’m tired of going to jail.’
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the sample was small and each respondent was interviewed only once. It would be informative to re-interview respondents several times over a year to gain a more complete understanding of the process of reintegration. Second, all respondents identified themselves as ‘White’ and the sample included only two women. The results could have been different among a sample from a different cultural background. For example, the influence of family and friends could be different in another country and may vary among people of different cultural backgrounds. Third, the data were derived exclusively from offender reports. It is possible some reports were not accurate due to lapses in memory or the desire to present oneself in a positive light. Supplementing self-reports with data from participants’ parole or probation officers would be informative. Fourth, the study was limited by the small number of women in the sample. Future research needs to examine more fully reintegration among women and how it is similar to and different from the reintegration of men.
Conclusion
Using data from 16 in-depth interviews, we presented qualitative information from the perspective of the offenders themselves. The goal was to examine reintegration from the perspective of offenders, a neglected aspect of reentry studies. Most researchers have used official records and quantitative surveys but have not examined reentry from the perspective of the offenders themselves (Travis and Visher, 2005). Our aim was not to study a random sample of offenders but to sample a variety of behaviors and types of offenders in order to obtain glimpses of their world from their perspective.
The interviews provide insights into the reentry process and highlight the importance of the subjective perceptions of offenders in the desistance process. The findings complement other recent qualitative research on the reintegration process (Byrne and Trew, 2008; Healy and O’Donnell, 2008; Hedderman et al., 2011; Shapland and Bottoms, 2011).
The findings have several implications for practice, policy, and research. First, more emphasis and resources need to be placed on prevention and treatment of drug abuse. Without such treatment, many offenders will continue to cycle back and forth between jail and the community. There is evidence that interventions can be effective if they are intensive, interactive, structured, and long term, and if they focus on skill building, use several different treatment modalities, offer inducements for participation, and provide aftercare (Cullen and Jonson, 2011; MacKenzie, 2006; Sherman et al., 2002). The data from the supplemental sample confirmed how treatment in prison and jail can be an important support for reintegration and desistance from drug use and crime. Types of programs that have been found to be effective include cognitive behavioral therapy, therapeutic communities, and drug courts. Aftercare appears to be a particularly neglected but valuable supplement to treatment programs.
Second, most of the offenders stressed the importance of social support through family, friends, and treatment services. This suggests that more emphasis should be placed on transitional support services for offenders when they are released. Transitional service is an area where traditional probation and parole could be modified to meet this need (Farrall, 2004). Third, research on how social factors and motivation may reinforce or moderate each other deserves further exploration, as suggested by Figure 1.
The reintegration of offenders is part of a broader societal problem regarding those who are stigmatized and disenfranchised. In order to reduce crime and recidivism, they need help to gain access to opportunities such as education and training, employment, housing, insurance, and medical care. And they need help in distancing themselves from criminal elements in society. The lack of access to legitimate opportunities produces strain which may encourage some to pursue illegitimate opportunities. Thus, parolees and probationers are similar to minorities and immigrants in that they are marginalized and have difficulty accessing legitimate opportunities (Rugh and Massey, 2010; Wilson, 1996, 1999).