|
COPYRIGHT 2005 Men's Studies Press
We explored the reentry process by interviewing 51 parolees three times over a period of three months after their release from prison. In addition, we interviewed 19 parole officers and tracked each parolee for six months after release. Ten of the 51 parolees were reincarcerated within six months after their release from prison. Family support, being married or having a partner, living with a family member, and being a parent were not associated with parole adjustment or with the likelihood of returning to prison. Variables associated with not being reincarcerated were number of close relationships within the family network, the quality of the parent-child relationship, being employed, and having stable housing. Reincarceration was associated with socializing with friends four or more times per week, the number of conflicted relationships in the family network, having family members who had been on probation or in jail, and the parolee's perceived difficulty in staying off drugs. These findings suggest that the overall network of family relationships is important in helping to make the transition from prison to the community.
Keywords: prison reentry, reentry, parolee adjustment, recidivism, family
**********
In 2002 there were more than 1.4 million persons in federal and state prisons in the United States, and 95 percent of them will be released to reintegrate into communities (Harrison & Beck, 2003; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001). Approximately 600,000 prisoners are released annually in the United States or an average of 1,600 per day (Petersilia, 2003; Travis et al., 2001). This is four times greater than the number of prisoners who were released 25 years ago (Visher & Travis, 2003).
About two-thirds of parolees are rearrested within three years of release, and 40% are reincarcerated (Langan & Levin, 2002). The rate of parole failure has increased during the past decade: "More of them are being arrested; these arrests are occurring more quickly; and as a group, ex-convicts are accounting for a growing share of all serious crimes experienced in the United States" (Petersilia, 2003, p. 144).
When inmates are released they leave the highly structured environment of the prison to the unstructured world, where they must learn to make decisions and care for themselves. They must decide where to live, find a way to support themselves, and reconnect with family and friends. Common requirements of parole are to report to one's parole officer regularly, find and maintain employment, obtain adequate housing, stay drug free, not associate with other felons, make supervision payments, obey all laws, and submit to searches and drug tests. Many are required to receive drug treatment.
Most prisoners reenter the community with no savings and few employment prospects (Petersilia, 2003). The task of securing employment is complicated by the fact that they often have a poor work history with a significant gap since the last date of employment. In addition, the stigma of a criminal record is a significant barrier (Pager, 2003).
A better understanding of the reentry process would enable us to help more inmates adjust to life outside of prison and lower recidivism rates. When recidivism rates are high, scarce economic resources that are needed elsewhere are spent on corrections. In the United States it costs about $25,000 per year to incarcerate one person, and the total amount spent on corrections has risen to more than $50 billion annually (Petersilia, 2003; Stephan, 2004). In addition, imprisonment impacts many families negatively. More than half of all male inmates are fathers of minor children, while two-thirds of female inmates are mothers (Mumola, 2000; Petersilia, 2000).
Although there has been extensive research on recidivism, there has been relatively little research on the adjustment process inmates go through when they are released from prison (Petersilia, 2000, 2003; Visher & Travis, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to use qualitative data to explore the reentry process among a small group of parolees during the first three months after their release. Our objective is to increase our understanding of the reentry process from the perspective of parolees.
THE PROCESS OF DESISTANCE FROM CRIME
There has been much theorizing and research about why people commit crime but much less study of why people who have committed criminal acts choose to desist from crime (Laub & Sampson, 2001; Shover & Thompson, 1992). A useful theory for explaining the desistance process is the life course perspective. It is an emerging theory that represents a major change in how we study human interaction (Elder, 2001).
A major concept of the life course perspective is informal social control that constrains individuals from violating rules (Hirschi, 1969; Laub & Sampson, 2001). As individuals become attached to conventional people and institutions, they develop a stake in conformity. If they violate the law, they have something to lose (Carlson, 2004). On the other hand, individuals with weak or no ties are more likely to violate the law because they have fewer constraints and less to lose if they are caught.
The life course perspective focuses on both change and stability over time. Two key concepts are trajectories and transitions (Elder, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 2001). Trajectories are long-term patterns and sequences. Many individuals in prison have been on a long-term trajectory of crime. A key challenge as they reenter society is how to change that trajectory.
Transitions are special life events that are embedded in trajectories. Examples of transitions are obtaining a job, marrying, and becoming a parent. The life course paradigm focuses on how certain transitions may help increase social bonds and modify trajectories. Key events and social bonds, especially attachment to the labor force and a cohesive marriage, help explain variations in criminal behavior (Sampson & Laub, 2001).
The findings from several recent studies illustrate how transitions may help alter criminal trajectories. Sampson and Laub (1990) found that job stability and strong marital attachment tended to inhibit adult crime. Individuals who had strong ties to work and family were less likely to commit a crime than individuals with weak bonds. The social ties that developed during the transitions helped explain variations in crime that were not accounted for by previous deviance (Sampson & Laub, 1990).
In a related study, Laub, Nagin, and Sampson (1998) observed that desistance from crime was facilitated by the development of quality marital bonds and that this influence was gradual and cumulative over time. They found that the standard predictors of crime such as being a difficult child, low IQ, living in poverty, and poor parental supervision were unable to differentiate offending trajectories into mid-adulthood. However, marriages characterized by social cohesiveness had a preventative effect on crime. The effect of a good marriage grew slowly until it had a major impact on inhibiting crime (Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998).
Horney, Osgood, and Marshall (1995) introduced the concept of "local life circumstances" to explain changes in offending over relatively short periods of time. Their objective was to determine whether formal and informal mechanisms of social control affected the likelihood of committing nine major felonies. They analyzed month-to-month variations in the life circumstances and offenses committed by convicted felons. Even though there was continuity over time, local life circumstances were associated with systematic changes in individual criminal behavior. They observed that living with a wife was associated with lower levels of offending but living with a girlfriend was associated with higher levels of offending. Attending school was associated with less crime while the use of drugs had a strong, positive association with crime. They concluded that individual trajectories of crime may be influenced by local life circumstances such as quarreling with a family member, getting fired from a job, and drug use (Homey, Osgood, & Marshall. 1995).
These findings illustrate how key transitions may influence criminal offending. Individuals who reenter society after being in prison are at a critical period in their life course. Whether they are able to change their trajectory and refrain from crime may depend on their local life circumstances. Informal bonds that are developed may help individuals constrain criminal tendencies and change their trajectory. Although initial changes in offending may be relatively small, the long-term effects may be significant as bonds to family and work are developed and maintained over time.
One of the reasons marriage is important is that it tends to reduce the amount of time spent with deviant friends (Warr, 1998). Marriage and work ties may help develop new networks that substitute for old deviant networks (Fagan, 1989). Stabilization of the new networks appears to be important. For example, when employment or marriage is not stable, a return to drug use is more likely (Kandel & Yamaguchi, 1987). Similarly, new relationships and informal monitoring by employer and spouse appear to help individuals desist from using alcohol (Vaillant, 1995). There is evidence that the positive effects of employment vary by age. Work may be more of a "turning point" for older than younger offenders (Uggen, 2000).
The life course perspective is consistent with the general theory of crime developed by Agnew (2005). He viewed crime as a function of motivations for crime and constraints against crime. In his theory the many variables that influence criminal motivations and constraints were grouped into five major life domains: family, work, peers, school, and self (Agnew, 2005). Agnew maintained that for adults the domains of family, work, and peers are particularly important. After reviewing...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
