Reentry and the Ties that Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism

Abstract

Scholars consistently find that reentering offenders who obtain steady work and maintain social ties to family are less likely to recidivate. Some theorize that familial ties may operate through employment to influence recidivism and that such ties may also serve a moderating role. The current study employs an integrated conceptual framework in order to test hypotheses about the link between familial ties, post‐release employment, and recidivism. The findings suggest that family ties have implications for both recidivism and job attainment. In fact, the results suggest that good quality social ties may be particularly important for men with histories of frequent unemployment. The implications of these findings are discussed with regard to theory and future research on prisoner reentry and recidivism.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [University of Missouri - St Louis]
On: 09 May 2014, At: 10:49
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Justice Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20
Reentry and the Ties that Bind:
An Examination of Social Ties,
Employment, and Recidivism
Mark T. Berg & Beth M. Huebner
Published online: 30 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Mark T. Berg & Beth M. Huebner (2011) Reentry and the Ties that Bind: An
Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism, Justice Quarterly, 28:2, 382-410, DOI:
10.1080/07418825.2010.498383
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.498383
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

JUSTICE QUARTERLY VOLUME 28 NUMBER 2 (APRIL 2011)
ISSN 0741-8825 print/1745-9109 online/11/020382-29
© 2011 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2010.498383
Reentry and the Ties that Bind:
An Examination of Social Ties,
Employment, and Recidivism
Mark T. Berg and Beth M. Huebner
Taylor and FrancisRJQY_A_498383.sgm10.1080/07418825.2010.498383Justice Quarterly0741-8825 (print)/1745-9109 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis000
0000002010Dr MarkBergmarkberg@iupui.edu
Scholars consistently find that reentering offenders who obtain steady work and
maintain social ties to family are less likely to recidivate. Some theorize that
familial ties may operate through employment to influence recidivism and that
such ties may also serve a moderating role. The current study employs an inte-
grated conceptual framework in order to test hypotheses about the link
between familial ties, post-release employment, and recidivism. The findings
suggest that family ties have implications for both recidivism and job attain-
ment. In fact, the results suggest that good quality social ties may be particu-
larly important for men with histories of frequent unemployment. The
implications of these findings are discussed with regard to theory and future
research on prisoner reentry and recidivism.
Keywords prisoner reentry; recidivism; social ties
Introduction
A massive growth in the USA prison population has stimulated scientific interest
in prisoner reentry. According to recent estimates, more than 1.5 million people
are currently under the jurisdiction of state and federal prisons (West & Sabol,
2009). Approximately two-thirds of returning offenders renew their involvement
Mark T. Berg is an assistant professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana
University-Purdue University, Indianapolis. His recent research, funded by the Harry Frank Guggen-
heim Foundation, focuses on the structural-cultural context of violent events, the reintegration
process, and longitudinal patterns of criminal behavior. Beth M. Huebner is an associate professor
and director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the
University of Missouri-St. Louis. Her recent research, funded by the National Institute of Justice,
considers the efficacy of sex offender residency laws and explores variation in patterns of offending
for urban and rural parolees. Correspondence to: Mark T. Berg, School of Public and Environmental
Affairs, Indiana University-Purude University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan St., BS 4073, Indianapo-
lis, IN 46202, USA. E-mail: markberg@iupui.edu.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 383
in criminal behavior, and nearly half will serve another sentence in prison (Langan
& Levin, 2002). In light of these facts, social scientists have increasingly focused
their efforts on explaining the etiology of recidivism and desistence among offend-
ers making the transition from prison to the community. Studies consistently find
that two conditions play a particularly salient role in the reentry process: employ-
ment and social ties to family (Glaser, 1964; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Petersilia,
2003; Visher & Travis, 2003). Evidence derived from a variety of data sources
shows that offenders who maintain a steady job and have close ties with members
of their family are less likely to renew their involvement in criminal behavior upon
release from prison. While this evidence is fairly clear, the manner by which famil-
ial ties affect recidivism has been relatively unexamined. Taken together, the
literature suggests that good quality social ties with family lower the risk for recid-
ivism, in part, by facilitating job attainment (Glaser, 1964; Visher, Debus, &
Yahner, 2008). In other words, by connecting offenders with stable employment
familial social ties may play an indirect role in affecting recidivism.
Extant research shows that the social capital obtained through relational ties
is of “paramount importance in connecting people with jobs” (Granovetter,
1974, p. 22). This capital is especially beneficial for job-seekers who are at a
relative disadvantage in terms of their marketable qualifications (i.e., work
history, education) and reputations (Granovetter, 1974, 1985; Lin, 2001). Most
offenders leaving prison lack a competitive resume, they are under-skilled rela-
tive to the general population, plus they shoulder a debilitating stigma that is
attached to their criminal history (Pager, 2003). Owing to these deficits, parol-
ees face significant challenges finding work (Petersilia, 2003). Some, however,
rely on family members to procure job arrangements, and it is through this
mechanism of job attainment that family ties are thought to be instrumental in
altering post-release behavior (see Glaser, 1964). Despite important advances in
knowledge about reentry, criminologists have yet to isolate, “how exactly social
ties aid released inmates in the transition back into society” (Bales & Mears,
2008, p. 313); in particular, little is known about whether family ties help
offenders overcome obstacles in the job market and secure employment (cf.
Visher & Travis, 2003). Empirical knowledge of these proposed associations will
serve as an additional step toward a more complete understanding of recidivism
and prisoner reentry.
The current study builds upon existing reentry research by investigating two
questions regarding the association between family-based social ties, job
attainment and recidivism. First, we examine whether employment is a conduit
through which familial social ties influence recidivism. Second, we examine
whether familial ties buffer the effects of deficits in employment qualifications
on job attainment. This analysis uses data that include both pre- and post-
release factors; the study sample comprises a group of men whose involvement
in criminal behavior was tracked for more than three years following parole.
Results are discussed with regard to criminological theory, future research on
recidivism, and prisoner reentry policy.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

384 BERG AND HUEBNER
Background
Family Ties and Returning Offenders
A large body of social science research has shown that during personal crises
(e.g., divorce, death, and serious health complications) family members are
fertile sources of psychological, material, and financial support (Cattell, 2001;
Umberson, 1987; Wellman & Wortley, 1990). In fact, criminological research
finds that upon release from prison, offenders commonly rely on parents,
grandparents, siblings, aunts, and uncles. Family members come to represent
core members of offenders’ social networks (Malik-Kane & Visher, 2008;
Shapiro & Schwartz, 2001). For example, approximately 40% of offenders in a
Baltimore release cohort expected to rely on family as a source of support in
the post-prison environment and, in fact, almost 50% ultimately did (Visher,
Kachnowski, La Vigne, & Travis, 2004). Nelson, Dees, and Allen (1999)
reported that approximately 80% of the parolees in their study resided with
family members upon release from prison. Meisenhelder (1977, pp. 328–329)
found in his study that family was a major source of relational attachments for
offenders and became “a secure place for [them] within the conventional
community.” Likewise, several other qualitative studies have observed that
family serves an important role in the post-release environment, namely as a
resourceful network of support (Braman, 2004; Farrall, 2004; Glaser, 1964;
Shover, 1996).
It is believed that, relative to the wider community, the family is more apt
to overlook offenders’ stigma—a phenomenon that facilitates the formation of
social ties between offenders and members of their family (Eckland-Olson,
Supancic, Campbell, & Lenihan, 1983). A record of imprisonment can lead to
gross exclusion (Matza, 1969, pp. 159–162) from conventional social networks
in one’s community, particularly when those networks comprise individuals
who have little prior information to construct an image of the offender’s self
other than what is known based on their criminal record (Ericson, 1977;
Lofland, 1969). By contrast, family members are unlikely to consider the
offenders’ arrest record as representative of their real self (Maruna, 2001),
rather they recognize it as a part of the offenders’ total personality. There-
fore, reentering offenders’ past transgressions have a less corrosive effect on
tie formation with members of their own family versus members of the wider
community (Braithwaite, 1989; Lofland, 1969, p. 214). In fact, a considerable
amount of research by Sampson and Laub (1993) stresses this notion, suggest-
ing that a reason the relational tie between offenders and spouses is unique
and potentially beneficial—in terms of desistence—is that it is unencumbered
by the stigma associated with a lengthy record of offending. In view of the
criminological literature, Farrall (2004, p. 72) concludes that “the family has
appeared to be a particularly strong resource for those attempting to desist to
call upon.”
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 385
Family Ties and Recidivism
Existing theoretical and empirical research implies that social ties to family
involve three components that purportedly affect their involvement in criminal
behavior. First, ties have a controlling effect on returning offenders’ behavior;
second, they provide a provision of emotional support; and third, they facilitate
identity transformation. We review these ideas in the forthcoming paragraphs.
Turning to the first of these components, the effect of social ties on offending
is often understood through the lens of control theory. Social control models
assume that people’s motivation to offend is restrained by their relations to soci-
ety, conceived of as social bonds (Hirschi, 1969). Variability in the strength of the
social bond accounts for variation in offending. Family ties represent a source of
social control in that they connect reentering offenders to the conventional social
order and in doing so thwart their impulses to recidivate (Laub & Sampson, 2003).
In the words of Glaser (1964, p. 335), these ties are “insulation from the criminal
influences” that reentering offenders encounter in free society. For instance,
family ties structure offenders’ daily routines, placing restrictions on where they
go to socialize, with whom they associate, and the types of behaviors they engage
in while socializing (i.e., heavy drinking, partying in bars and clubs, and drug use)
(see Warr, 1998).
Second, existing research suggests that intimate ties supply returning offend-
ers with a provision of emotional support. This support reduces the impulse to
offend in several ways. First, families provide offenders with emotional
resources to cope with the stressful challenges of reentry (Agnew, 2005; Glaser,
1964). In fact, Maruna (2001) as well as Laub and Sampson (2003) offer recent
empirical evidence to suggest that offenders’ families provide a durable
emotional barrier which shields them from the disorienting experiences common
to reentry. Elsewhere, theorists claim that familial ties serve as the basis of the
shaming process, and family members take on a nurturing role in the process of
social reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989). Empirical research with parolees has
supported the purported centrality of familial support (Naser & Visher, 2006;
Sullivan, Mino, & Nelson, 2002). For example, interviewed roughly three months
after their release date, a sample of ex-prisoners from Ohio identified support
from the family as the most important thing that kept them from returning to
prison (Visher & Courtney, 2006, p. 2). Other studies find that ex-prisoners with
close ties to their family report higher levels of optimism, confidence in the
future, and an unwillingness to commit to criminal behavior (Burnett, 2004;
Maruna, 2001; Nelson, Dees, & Allen, 1999). For example, a number of the men
in Laub and Sampson’s (2003) research asserted that the emotional support
offered by members of their family, including spouses, children, and in-laws,
was fundamental to their eventual success at desistence. Noting this finding,
Laub and Sampson (2003, p. 137) remarked, “for some men [those who had
desisted], a wife was one of the first people to care for them and about them.”
Third, a growing research literature indicates that family relationships are
fundamental components in the process of cognitive change. Specifically, theory
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

386 BERG AND HUEBNER
argues that the process of cognitive transformation is coupled with the forma-
tion of relational ties; these ties act as an anchor, enabling offenders to
construct an alternative identity (Finestone, 1967). Giordano, Cernkovich, and
Rudolph (2002) describe, for instance, how social ties within intimate networks
are representative of a structural contingency or a hook for change. According to
their research, these hooks are requisite to the development of a replacement
self that is fundamentally incompatible with continued offending. Interpersonal
ties with conventional actors serve to reaffirm the legitimacy of ex-prisoners’
conventional orientation by providing testimony to the authenticity of their
reform (Maruna, 2001, p. 157; Shover, 1996). In this way, participation in the
roles inhered in family ties reinforces ex-prisoners’ perception of themselves as
a contributing member of society, and at the same time it galvanizes their
commitment to conformity (Braithwaite, 1989; Maruna & Toch, 2005).
Family Ties and Employment
Another emerging perspective in the literature implies that beyond supplying
social control, social support, and the impetus for identity transformation,
familial ties also serve an instrumental function in the post-release environ-
ment—namely, they act as a bridge to the job market (Glaser, 1964). Familial
ties are said to contain a cache of social capital, which is conceived of as a rela-
tional investment inhered in the structure of the social network (Furstenberg,
2005; Portes, 1998). When acted upon, the stock of capital within the familial
network assists offenders in attaining various symbolic and material resources in
the post-release setting, including a steady job.
Specifically, theory suggests that social capital promotes the likelihood of job
attainment in four distinct ways. First, according to Lin (2001) “information
flow” is facilitated by social capital. For example, offenders with imperfect
knowledge of job markets learn of positions and opportunities in the market-
place from members of their family. In fact, Granovetter (1974, p. 11) discov-
ered in his study of capital and job acquisition that personal contact was the
predominant method of finding a job. Second, social capital has an “influence”
on individuals who have the authority to make key decisions within organiza-
tions (Lin, 2001). For example, employers may be swayed to hire an applicant,
despite their criminal record, based on inside knowledge about the applicant’s
character that the employer gleaned from their family. Third, an individual’s
ties to a given social network are viewed by others as “certification” of the
person’s ability to access valued resources (Lin, 2001). In this way, deficits in
ex-prisoners’ personal qualifications or reputation might be outweighed by their
potential to secure material assets from the familial network in which they are
embedded. Finally, in Lin’s (2001, p. 20) words, social ties “reinforce identity
and recognition.” Knowing that an ex-prisoner has social standing in a group
serves to enhance perceptions of their reputation in the eyes of others. Empiri-
cal evidence shows, for example, that certain ex-prisoners are granted jobs
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 387
because their family has a respectable degree of status in the community
(Sullivan, 1989).
In short, the social capital embedded within familial ties connects offenders
to jobs by facilitating information flow, influencing decision makers, certifying
one’s qualifications, and affecting one’s reputation. This is not to say that
employment history and education (i.e., credentials) are irrelevant assets in the
job marketplace. Indeed, within certain sectors, such as technology, these
credentials are perhaps fully adequate (cf. Granovetter, 1974). But empirical
evidence generally shows that formal credentials are often “insufficient to
convey the social skills and resources so essential” (Lin, 2001) for the acquisi-
tion of a job. Given that ex-prisoners are often severely disadvantaged in terms
of their credentials upon release, including their reputations, then social
networks are especially relevant to their ability to secure a steady job (Braman,
2004; Petersilia, 2003; see also Uggen, Wakefield, & Western, 2005).
Employment and Criminal Offending
Research conducted on high-risk samples often finds a negative link between
employment and criminal behavior (see Laub & Sampson, 2003; cf. Uggen et al.,
2005). For example, Laub and Sampson (2003) analyzed longitudinal data on 500
men and found that during periods of employment they were less likely to
commit predatory crime and engage in heavy alcohol use. Similarly, using retro-
spective data gathered from Nebraska inmates, Horney, Osgood, and Marshall
(1995) found that the probability of committing property offenses was reduced
in the months when sample members were employed. Uggen’s (1999) analysis of
the National Supported Works Demonstration Project data indicates that jobs of
high quality diminished the likelihood of recidivism among released offenders,
even after controlling for selection into employment. Theory stresses that a
steady job gives offenders a sense of identity and meaning to their life, while it
also places restrictions on their routines, thereby reducing their exposure to
situations conducive to criminal behavior (Glaser, 1964; Laub & Sampson, 2003;
see also Sullivan, 1989). Employment, however, also enables individuals to pay
their bills, secure housing, and develop a wider network of ties to conventional
society (Petersilia, 2003; Visher & Courtney, 2006; Visher & Travis, 2003). Plus,
employment reduces the economic incentive to engage in income-generating
crimes (Petersilia & Rosenfeld, 2008; Shover, 1996). Others note that role
commitments associated with employment also reduce offending by virtue of
the fact that such behavior is inconsistent with the role and might jeopardize it
altogether (Matsueda & Heimer, 1997; Sampson & Laub, 1993).
Reentry and Job Attainment
By several accounts, obtaining steady employment in the post-prison context is
a difficult task for reentering offenders, a task that is encumbered by two major
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

388 BERG AND HUEBNER
challenges (see Bushway, Stoll, & Weiman, 2007; Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll,
2001). First, the stigma of criminal conviction makes reentering offenders unat-
tractive job candidates. For example, an audit study found that employers were
unwilling to hire those with a reported criminal record even when they
exceeded the qualifications for the position (Pager, 2003). Also, nearly 60% of
employers surveyed in four large US cities reported that they would “definitely
not” or “probably not” hire an ex-prisoner (Holzer, 1996). A mixed-method
study of 740 men released from prison showed that that within two months
after their parole date nearly 80% spent time searching for a job. However,
most of the men reported difficultly during the search because of their criminal
record (Visher et al., 2008). Once in the community, not only are many employ-
ers reluctant to hire convicted felons, but many former prisoners are legally
barred from certain occupations (Petersilia, 2003). By virtue of their record,
offenders face an especially narrow range of job opportunities.
Second, many offenders lack much-needed work skills, educational
qualifications, and a stable history of employment. For instance, recent esti-
mates show that roughly one-third of 25–34-year-old male inmates in state
prisons held a high school diploma compared to 90% of males of the same age
in the general population (Uggen et al., 2005). Whereas roughly 80% of 25–34-
year-old non-imprisoned males were employed full-time, only 55% of inmates
in the same demographic group reported being employed at the time of their
most recent arrest. Additionally, Rubenstein (2001) estimates that 40% of
adult state prisoners are functionally illiterate compared to 21% of non-incar-
cerated adults (cf. Petersilia, 2003). A history of irregular work and inade-
quate qualifications signals to potential employers that applicants are
relatively poor candidates for an open position. Some scholars speculate that
spending time in prison may further erode existing job skills and embed
offenders into criminal networks as behaviors that are adaptive to prison life
and street offending may be detrimental to working a job (Maruna & Toch,
2005; Uggen et al., 2005).
However, consistent with social capital theory, a small body of empirical
research suggests that familial ties are an important mechanism by which ex-
prisoners secure a job and overcome the hurdles of stigma and insufficient
qualifications. Glaser (1964) observed that parolees frequently relied on
personal contacts with family members for job procurement. A more recent
study by Visher et al. (2008) noted that most offenders found work through
personal connections including relatives (see also Visher et al., 2004). Simi-
larly, research by Farrall (2004) found some evidence showing that offenders’
parents offered them jobs—if the parents were self-employed—or found
employment for them via personal contacts. In sum, existing evidence implies
that an important way by which familial ties influence recidivism is through
employment, and an important way by which offenders find a job is through
familial ties. However, given the paucity of multivariate research along these
lines, additional systematic evidence is needed to verify the validity of these
claims.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 389
Current Study
In short, offenders often rely on social ties upon release from prison, and
extant research suggests that family ties may have a more proximate influence
on recidivism through the supply of social control, support, and the momen-
tum for cognitive change that they provide. However, these ties might also
reduce recidivism indirectly through the acquisition of a steady job. Stated
otherwise, employment is perhaps an important mechanism through which
familial ties influence offending in the post-release environment. Although
these causal relationships have been implied in the literature, relatively little
empirical research has been conducted in this area. In fact, Visher and Travis
(2003, p. 99) fault researchers for focusing on the “single outcome of recidi-
vism rather than attempting to understand the complicated process through
which family may affect reintegration.” The overarching goal of this study is
to make progress toward filling in this knowledge gap; we draw on the litera-
ture outlined in the foregoing paragraphs to delineate three hypotheses
regarding the relationship between interpersonal ties to family, employment,
and recidivism.
Hypothesis 1: Good quality familial ties have a direct negative effect on recidi-
vism.
Hypothesis 2: A significant quantity of the negative relationship between famil-
ial ties and recidivism is indirect and mediated by the effect of
employment.
Social capital theory predicts that social ties are instrumental in securing
access to jobs, if this notion is valid then the direct effect of social ties on
recidivism should be significantly reduced once we control for post-release
employment.
Hypothesis 3: (a) Offenders who lack a high school diploma and who have an
insufficient work history will be less likely to acquire employ-
ment upon release; (b) moreover, familial ties will moderate the
negative effects of deficits in both education and work history on
post-prison employment.
Here we predict a negative relationship between deficits in personal capital
(i.e., work history and education) and post-release employment, and we also
expect that this relationship will be weaker for those with good quality social
ties.
Data and Methods
The dataset for the current study comprises a random sample of 401 males
paroled from prisons in a single Midwestern state in 2000. Information on
whether they were arrested following their parole date was gathered through
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

390 BERG AND HUEBNER
October2004.
1
The data were culled from official agency records. We obtained
information on offenders’ pre-prison demographic characteristics, officially
recorded criminal history records, and post-release arrests from department of
corrections databases. Data on post-prison social conditions and pre-prison
employment and substance abuse history were obtained from the Level of
Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Following state DOC guidelines, the LSI-R
assessment was administered by parole officers to members of the sample in a
semi-structured interview within approximately two weeks of when they were
discharged from prison, during their initial parole meeting.
More specifically, the LSI-R is a widely used 54-item risk assessment instru-
ment administered in a structured interview used to plot probationers and
parolees risk for reoffending and measure their progress while under supervi-
sion; it captures pre- and post-prison static and dynamic factors known to
closely correlate with offending (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006). The LSI-R is
appropriate for a study of this type. Several studies show that the LSI-R has
predictive validity (Vose, Cullen, & Smith, 2008), high test–retest reliability (see
Andrews & Bonta, 2006). The LSI-R is widely used by correctional officials in
North America who currently adopt the instrument as part of offender manage-
ment protocols (see Petersilia, 2003; Smith, Cullen, & Latessa, 2009).
2
Our purpose is not to conduct an evaluation of the LSI-R’s predictive validity,
but to draw upon the rich array of information the instrument offers on an item-
by-item basis for the purpose of testing the current hypotheses. In the para-
graphs that follow the study measures are described, followed by a presentation
of descriptive statistics and the results of the multivariate analyses.
3
Dependent Variables
The goal of this analysis is to explore the role of post-prison social ties in predict-
ing parolee recidivism and employment. Hence, we use two separate dependent
variables in the analyses. Consistent with extant research, we operationalize
recidivism as offenders’ first arrest following release from prison. Data on time
to failure were also collected and reflect the number of days until rearrest. In
1. Using an electronic sorting process, staff from the state department of corrections (DOC) placed all
parolees released in 2000 into a single electronic file and randomly selected every fifth parolee from
the total parole file until a sample of 570 offenders was compiled (401 males; 169 females). We focus
here on the 401 males in the sample. Random sampling was used to reduce the costs to the department
of corrections associated with data collection. The sample is reflective of the population of parolees
from the state in 2000. Further details on the study state are available from the authors by request.
2. The efficacy of the LSI-R has been well documented (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Petersilia,
2003); however, it is important to note that there is an ongoing debate surrounding the utility of this
instrument for women (see Holtfreter, Reisig, & Morash, 2004; Smith et al., 2009). DOC officials from
the state in which the data originates conduct annual assessments to determine the internal reliability
of LSI-R; this is done using a test–retest method. The assessment conducted during the time frame in
which these datasets were collected showed high test–retest reliability from 2001 through 2004.
3. Due to confidentiality reasons and bureaucratic oversight we were not allowed to access answers
to the open-ended questions from the LSI-R interview.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 391
total, 66% of the sample were rearrested during the 46-month follow-up period,
and parolees averaged 619 days (SD = 389) in the community before recidivating
(see Table 1).
In addition, we include a measure of post-release employment that was gath-
ered by the department of corrections and reported on the LSI-R assessment—this
measure reflects employment status during the release period (1 = full-time
work—30+ hours per week, 0 = part-time, sporadic employment or unemployed).
Offenders who reported acquiring full-time work (30 or more hours of paid
employment per week) were asked to provide parole officials with their employ-
ers’ contact information, and this information was used to verify the offender’s
employment status. In total, 46% of the sample were employed during the release
period. Post-release employment was assessed within approximately four weeks
of parolees’ intake date and was not recorded during their initial meeting with
their parole officer. Thus, information from the intake interview—which occurred
in the first two weeks of parolees’ release from prison, as noted earlier—was
updated to include offenders’ post-release employment status. Employment
information was not gathered during the first meeting by parole officers since
offenders had not had the occasion to investigate opportunities in the local job
marketplace, owing to the fact that they were only recently incarcerated.
4
The
rate of employment at the four-week time-point (46%, see Table 1) in the current
study sample is similar to statistics reported elsewhere using a similar window of
time. For example, in the study by Visher et al. (2008), by two months after
release nearly 43% of offenders were employed.
Independent Variables
Familial social ties are measured using two distinct constructs derived from the
LSI-R. The first gauges the quality of offenders’ ties to their parents and the
second measures the quality of relationships with non-parental relatives. Paren-
tal ties is a dichotomous measure (1 = reflects a relatively satisfactory or satis-
factory relationship; 0 = reflects an unsatisfactory, or relatively unsatisfactory,
or non-existent relationship with parents).
5
Similarly, the ties to relatives
measure includes relationships with siblings, grandparents, cousins, and aunts
4. Parole officials reported to the authors that some reentering offenders learned of job opportuni-
ties while they were incarcerated, often through family connections. And therefore some were able
to make a transition immediately into employment upon release (for similar see Nelson et al.,
1999).
5. The measures of ties to relatives and parental ties were originally scored on an ordinal scale (see
Appendix 1). We recoded both the relative and parental ties variables into binary measures because
both of the variables (i.e., ties to relatives and ties to parents) were sharply skewed. For the paren-
tal ties construct, five offenders received a score of (3), and nine offenders received a score of (0).
In terms of familial ties, six offenders received a score of (3) and eight a score of (0). To generate
reliable estimates unaffected by rare and extreme scores, we recoded the two family ties variables
into dichotomous measures, with scores of 0 and 1 recoded as (0) and scores of 2 and 3 recoded as
(1).
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

392 BERG AND HUEBNER
Table 1 Summary statistics and descriptive narratives for study variables
Variable Mean SD Description
Dependent variables
Recidivism 66% Occurrence and timing of the first post-release arrest during the 46-month follow-up period
Post-release employment 46% 1 = parolee is employed for 30+ hours per week; 0 = offender works less than 30 hours per week,
have sporadic work histories, are in a temporary position, or employment cannot be verified
Independent variables
Pre-prison characteristics
Prior arrests 9.14 8.57 Number of prior arrests
Release age 31.81 8.71 Age in years at release from prison
Non-White 28% 1 = African-American, Hispanic, or Native American; 0 = White
No high school education 67% 1 = offender had not completed high school or obtained a GED; 0 = respondent has completed
high school
Alcohol abuse history 73% 1 = respondent drank alcohol more than three times per week, reported passing out or blacking
out, substance use affected other life domains (work, education, intimate relations, family), or
they had contacts with medical facilities for treatment and dependence; 0 = offender did not
report these behaviors prior to imprisonment
Drug abuse history 68% 1 = offender used drugs more than three times per week, reported passing out or blacking out,
substance use affected other life domains, or they had contacts with medical facilities for
treatment and dependence.; 0 = responded did not report prior drug use.
Frequently unemployed 60% 1 = offender worked less than 50% of the time in the 12 months prior to their incarceration or if
they had numerous job changes annually in their lives; 0 = parolee worked more than 50% time
and maintained job stability over time
Property conviction 46% 1 = served time in prison for larceny, theft, burglary, fraud; 0 = drug-related or other crime
Violent conviction 14% 1 = served time in prison for rape, robbery, homicide, felonious assault, arson; 0 = drug-related
or other crime
Post-prison conditions
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 393
Table 1 (Continued)
Variable Mean SD Description
Stable living arrangements 1.18 .76 Ordinal measure ranging from 0 to 3; 0 = a very unsatisfactory situation with a very clear and
strong need for improvement, 1 = a relatively satisfactory situation with a need for
improvement, 2 = a relatively satisfactory situation with some need for improvement evident,
3 = a relatively satisfactory situation with no need for improvement
Antisocial attitudes 1.22 .77 Ordinal measure ranging from 0 to 3; 0 = a relatively satisfactory situation with no need for
improvement, 1 = a relatively satisfactory situation with some need for improvement, 2 = a
relatively satisfactory situation with a need for improvement, 3 = a very unsatisfactory situation
with a very clear and strong need for improvement
Mental health problems .49 .62 Ordinal measure ranging from 0 to 2; (0) = no interference, (1) = mild interference, (2) = severe
interference, active psychosis
Parental ties 44% 1 = relationship with parents is relatively or very satisfactory; 0 = relationship is relatively
unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory, or non-existent
Ties to relatives 46% 1 = relationship with aunts, uncles, cousins, or siblings is relatively satisfactory or very
satisfactory; 0 = relationships are relatively unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory, or nonexistent
Intimate partner relationship 1.44 .77 0 = relationship is very unsatisfactory 1 = relatively unsatisfactory situation, 2 = relatively
satisfactory situation, 3 = refers to a very satisfactory relationship
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

394 BERG AND HUEBNER
and uncles
6
(1 = reflects a relatively satisfactory to absolutely satisfactory
relationship; 0 = reflects a relatively unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, or non-
existent familial relationship).
7
In total, 44% of the sample had positive ties
with relatives, and 46% reported strong relationships with parents. Additional
information on the coding of the family ties variables is given in Appendix 1.
In addition, we include a measure designed to capture the quality of an
offender’s intimate partner relationships; this measure refers to marriage as
well as intimate relationships not bonded by marriage. Scores range from 0
through 3 (0 = very unsatisfactory with a very clear and strong need for improve-
ment, 1 = relatively unsatisfactory situation with a need for improvement, 2 =
satisfactory situation with some need for improvement, and 3 = refers to a
satisfactory situation with no need for improvement). For more information on
the variable coding scheme, please see Appendix 1.
We included two measures meant to capture the extent of offenders’
employment qualifications or credentials. The measure of work history reflects
whether respondents were frequently unemployed prior to incarceration (1 =
offender worked less than 50% of the time in the 12 months prior to their incar-
ceration or if they had numerous job changes annually in the years preceding
their incarceration; 0 = parolee worked more than 50% time and maintained job
stability). A history of frequent unemployment signals to employers that poten-
tial employees are unlikely to commit themselves to working at a job for a
significant period of time (Granovetter, 1974). Similarly, education is a gateway
to employment opportunities, and achievement in school can be viewed by
employers as a proxy for effort and ambition (see Rosenbaum, Kariya, Setter-
sten, & Maier, 1990; Thurow, 1975). Therefore, we also included a measure of
whether offenders had not completed high school, deemed high school educa-
tion (1 = did not complete high school; 0 = completed high school or obtained a
GED). In terms of personal characteristics, 67% of offenders lacked a high school
education and 60% reported a history of frequent unemployment.
Measures of past criminal behavior are critical to capturing long-term
involvement in the criminal justice system (DeLisi, 2005). Three variables
capture offenders’ criminal history. The first of these, prior arrests, is a contin-
uous measure reflecting the total number of times offenders were arrested prior
6. The LSI-R scoring guide states that corrections officers should “Look for one solid relationship (if
the offender has regular contact with 1 out of 5 siblings and that 1 sibling is a good, pro-social
support for the offender, then you may score that 1 positive person).” Also, corrections officers are
urged to “look at the density of the relationship (with who does the offender have the most
contact).” The parental ties measures are to be scored using a similar logic of that used to score the
parental measures (see Note 4).
7. We re-estimated all analyses with the two family ties variables (i.e., ties to parents and ties to
relatives) in their original four-score ordinal metric (0) to (3) and the results were virtually the same
as those reported here (available upon request). However, it is important to note that we found that
the overall model fit was more robust with the dichotomized measures relative to the model that
employed the ordinal versions of the family ties measures. In fact, we found that the models showed
a moderate level of improvement in structural fit with the implementation of the dichotomized
measures. Based on this evidence, we have greater confidence in the reliability and validity of the
estimates generated with the dichotomized measures versus those from the ordinal metric.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 395
to their current prison term. In addition, we included two variables indexing the
nature of the offense for which the sample member was incarcerated, including
violent offense (1 = rape, robbery, homicide, felonious assault, arson), property
offense (1 = larceny, theft, burglary, fraud). Drug offenses serve as the refer-
ence category. Respondents averaged 9.14 prior arrests and 46% were serving
time for a property offense and 14% for a violent crime.
Finally, we employ four broad clusters of control variables in the analyses to
safeguard against omitted variable bias, all of which were measured at the initial
parole interview, including demographic characteristics, pre-prison substance
use, criminal history, mental health, and post-release factors. With regard to
demographic characteristics, we incorporate a measure of race that is scored as
a dichotomous variable (non-White = 1),
8
and a continuous indicator of offenders’
age at release in years (x = 31.81, SD = 8.71). Two measures of pre-prison substance
use are included, both of which are derived from the LSI-R. The dichotomous
measures, alcohol abuse history and drug abuse history, assess whether an
offender ever had a drug or alcohol problem. We coded the items based on the
criterion for substance abuse history spelled out in LSI-R scoring guide, individuals
are coded (1) if, prior to prison, they drank alcohol (or used drugs) more than three
times per week and reported passing out, blacking out or substance use affected
other life domains (work, education, intimate relations, family), or they had
contacts with medical facilities for treatment and dependence. Offenders who did
not report substance abuse were the reference category and coded as (0). Overall,
73% of the sample indicated prior alcohol use and 68% had a drug abuse history.
Next, we incorporate a measure of mental health problems which is an ordinal
variable scored from 0 through 2 (x = .49, SD = .62) gathered from the LSI-R.
9
We
collapsed LSI-R questions 46 and 47—two dichotomous indicators of mild and severe
mental issues, respectively—to create a single item. Parolees who report or convey
no problems receive a score of 0, those with mild mental health interference
receive a score of 1, and with severe interference or active psychosis a score of
2. Next, we also include an ordinal variable from the LSI-R capturing whether
residents have secured stable living arrangements (x = 1.18, SD = .76). This factor
is said to play an important role in successful reentry outcomes (Petersilia, 2003).
Scores range from 0 through 3 (0 = very unsatisfactory with a very clear and strong
need for improvement, 1 = relatively unsatisfactory situation with a need for
improvement, 2 = satisfactory situation with some need for improvement, and 3
= refers to a satisfactory situation with no need for improvement).
Finally, a measure of offenders’ altitudinal orientation toward crime is added
to the analysis; here it is labeled antisocial attitudes and is derived from the
8. With regard to our measure of race, the category of non-White includes 15 individuals who identi-
fied either as Hispanic, Asian, or Native American. Due to the small cell counts, it was not feasible
to conduct analyses with separate measures created for individuals in these three groups. However,
we conducted alternate analyses where the 15 non-White members were recoded in the data file
and included as White; the results under the new coding scheme were virtually identical to those
reported here.
9. Information on the specific diagnoses from the psychological assessment was not made available
to the researchers due to concerns surrounding subject confidentiality.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

396 BERG AND HUEBNER
LSI-R. A parolee’s orientation toward offending may underpin their involvement
in conventional institutions and also predict offending (Shover, 1996;
Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Wei, Farrington, & Wikstrom, 2002). Scores on the
item range from 0 through 3, a score of 3 = a very unsatisfactory situation with
very clear and strong need for improvement, 2 = relatively unsatisfactory situa-
tion with need for improvement, 1 = a satisfactory situation with some need for
improvement, and 0 = a satisfactory situation with no need for improvement.
The item coding adopted here is reverse coded from the original scoring metric.
Analytical Plan
The analyses proceed in three stages correspond to the study hypotheses. First,
we examine the effects of family ties and employment on recidivism. Cox propor-
tional hazards techniques are used to examine the occurrence and timing of recid-
ivism. Hazard models are appropriate for this study as they effectively manage
the bias that arises in the process of estimating equations based on censored cases
(Cox, 1972; Singer & Willett, 2003). Plus, hazard models take into account differ-
ential exposure time, or the variation within the sample in the number of days
that subjects are monitored—in the present case, variation in exposure arises
from variation in parole dates (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1999). Positive coefficients
indicate that an individual with a given characteristic recidivates more quickly,
while negative coefficients denote delayed time until failure.
Second, we deploy logistic regression techniques to estimate the effects of
parental ties and ties to relatives on post-release employment (Long, 1997).
These models consider the relationships between social ties and the acquisition
of a job. Finally to test Hypothesis 3, we use logistic regression models to exam-
ine whether parental ties and ties to relatives moderate the effects of poor pre-
prison work history and high school education on job attainment.
Results
Table 2 presents the estimates from the Cox proportional hazard models,
predicting the timing of the rearrest event. Model 1 omits the measure of post-
release employment, and therefore estimates the effect of parental ties and ties
to other relatives on recidivism, net of control measures. Consistent with
Hypothesis 1, results indicate that parental ties have a negligible influence on
recidivism risk; ?however, men with strong social ties had delayed times to recid-
ivism. The log-odds coefficient (–.393) suggests that good quality ties to relatives
have a strong negative effect on the timing of recidivism. In terms of pre-prison,
demographic characteristics, men with more extensive criminal history records
failed more quickly as did younger men. Measures of education, race, pre-prison
employment history, nature of the current offense, and substance abuse history
were not statistically significant in the models. However, antisocial attitudes
and mental health problems were positively related to recidivism.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 397
Next, post-release employment was added to Model 2. Two main findings
emerged from this model. First, post-release employment had a significant,
negative influence on recidivism, indicating that men who secured jobs
following release from prison are less likely to fail on parole and fail less
quickly than unemployed men. Second, when post-release employment is
added to the model, the ties-to-relatives variable is no longer significant.
10
Figure 1 depicts the survival rates of employed versus unemployed offend-
ers using the estimates generated in Model 2 of Table 2. Across the follow-
up period, employed offenders were less likely to be rearrested.
11
For
10. The LSI-R also contains an item related to whether parolees maintain close ties with family
members who are involved in crime. To examine its potential role in predicting recidivism, we
added this measure to the models in Table 2 in a supplementary set of analyses. Slightly less than
10% of the sample indicated having such ties. Results from multivariate analysis showed that the
measure had a non-significant effect on the timing of recidivism (
β
= .148, p = .101).
11. We conducted supplementary analysis to probe the nature of the relationship between familial
ties and recidivism, particularly the effect of parental ties. First, we re-estimated Models 1 and 2 of
Table 1, but analyzed separate models for each of the familial ties measures. We carried out this
procedure primarily to determine if the effect of parental ties was diminished by the presence of
ties to relatives and vice versa. The correlation between parental ties and ties to relatives was
statistically significant (r = .45, p < .05), and potentially large enough to partially mask the effects
of one another. Results of this exercise indicated that absent the measure of ties to relatives, paren-
tal ties did not have a significant effect on recidivism with or without employment in the model.
Table 2 Cox proportional hazard models predicting recidivism
Model 1 Model 2
Coef. SE OR Coef. SE OR
Pre-prison characteristics
Prior arrests .020** .006 1.02 .020** .007 1.22
Age at release −.027* .009 .973 −.030* .009 .738
Race (non-White) −.174 .155 −.150 −.156
No high school education −.077 .154 −.102 .155
Drug conviction .030 .170 .049 .174
Violence conviction .083 .194 .058 .195
Alcohol abuse history .027 .191 .021 .200
Drug abuse history .170 .232 .133 .233
Frequently unemployed .180 .167 .269 .172
Post-prison conditions
Stable living Arrangements −.019 .093 −.020 .092
Antisocial attitudes .224* .110 1.25 .209* .099 1.23
Mental health problems .282* .110 1.32 .243* .112 1.27
Intimate partner ties −.034 .097 −.011 .097
Ties to relatives −.393* .154 .675 −.237 .162
Parental ties −.057 .165 −.021 .169
Employed — — −.375* .168 .687
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

398 BERG AND HUEBNER
instance, by the 600-day mark, approximately 24% of unemployed offenders
had survived without an arrest (not recidivated) versus 42% of employed
parolees.
Figure 1 Survival rate stratified by employment status.
Moving to Table 3, we consider if educational attainment, work history,
and familial ties are related to post-release employment. Consistent with
Hypothesis 2, we find that those who were frequently unemployed prior to
incarceration are less likely to be employed in the post-release period.
Specifically, men who had an insufficient work history prior to imprison-
ment were 92% less likely to be employed compared with men with steady
pre-prison employment. Contrary to expectations, the relationship between
high school education and post-release employment status was not statisti-
cally significant. We also predicted that familial ties may bridge offenders
to jobs. Somewhat consistent with our predictions, Model 1 of Table 3 indi-
cates that ties to relatives are positively related to employment, whereas
parental ties do not have a significant influence on employment status.
Furthermore, offenders who are involved in an intimate relationship are also
more likely to be employed, suggesting that perhaps ties with intimate
partners connect offenders to jobs and sustain their involvement in the
Figure 1 Survival rate stratified by employment status.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 399
Table 3 Logistic Regression Model Predicting Post-Release Employment
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
B SE OR B SE OR B SE OR B SE OR B SE OR
Pre-Prison Characterstics
Prior Arrests .067 .177 −.005 .157 .068 .172 .048 .168 .061 .187
Age at Release −.043* .017 .957 −.040* .010 .960 −.041* .017 .959 −.048* .018 1.04 −.053* .011 2.61
Race (Non-White) .143 .330 .307 .433 .139 .385 .138 .388 .161 .368
No High School Education −.366 .333 −.247 .240 −.637 .407 −.607 .408 −.364 .233
Drug Conviction .009 .486 .047 .325 .091 .352 .110 .358 .112 .466
Violence Conviction −.274 .432 −.388 .277 −.278 .300 −.276 .317 −.301 .399
Alcohol Abuse History .185 .334 .101 .329 .179 .308 .168 .325 .181 .330
Drug Abuse History −.051 .193 −.047 .125 −.051 .322 −.046 .193 .363 .210
Frequently Unemployed −1.92* .367 .146 −1.57* .371 .207 −1.91* .321 .148 −1.55* .368 .212 −1.20* .299 .301
Post-Prison Conditions
Stable Living Arrangements .343 .249 .300 .244 .292 .240 .287 .281 .340 .189
Antisocial Attitudes .509 .428 .519 .418 .490 .422 .428 .377 .477 .369
Mental Health Problems −.310 .243 −.359 .299 −.388 .310 −.377 .278 −.299 .311
Intimate Partner Ties .444* .200 1.56 .468* .247 1.73 .518* .259 .527* .261 1.69 .527* .219 1.69
Ties to Relatives .756* .323 2.13 .727 .299 2.07 .755* .327 .688* .322 1.98 .689* .323 1.99
Parental Ties .039 .184 .009 .188 .033 .117 .039 .111 .033 .164
Interaction Terms
Ties to Relatives × Frequently Unemployed – – −1.36* .448 .256 – – – – – –
Parental Ties × Frequently Unemployed – – – – −.891 .591 – – – –
Ties to Relatives × No High School Edu. – – – – – – −.765 .570 – –
Parental Ties × No High School Edu. – – – – – – – – −1.01 .573
*p < .05; **p < .01
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

400 BERG AND HUEBNER
job.
12
It is also possible, however, that parolees’ relations with intimate
partners hinge on whether they have a job and therefore partners do not
connect offenders to jobs per se, but provide the motivation for them to
attain a job.
13
But without additional data it is difficult to decipher the
true nature of the effects associated with ties to intimate partners. Over-
all, the estimates suggest that family ties—in the form of ties to close rela-
tives other than their parents—may play a role in connecting offenders to
jobs, while deficits in employment credentials (but not educational attain-
ment) represent a barrier to steady post-release employment.
The next four models include the interactions between each of the two forms
of family ties with both education and work history in order to predict post-
release employment. Turning to Model 2, the results show that the interaction
between ties to relatives and frequent unemployment is statistically significant,
suggesting that the negative effect of frequent unemployment on post-release
employment is contingent upon ties to relatives. Next, contrary to predictions,
parental ties do not moderate the effects of frequent unemployment in Model
3; rather frequent pre-prison unemployment has a negative effect on post-
release employment despite whether one has good quality ties to parents. In
Model 4, the interaction between ties to relatives and education is not statisti-
cally significant. Finally, Model 5 indicates that parental ties also do not moder-
ate the relationship between education and employment as the interaction
term is not significant.
14
Figure 2 decomposes the statistically significant interaction term found in
Model 2 of Table 3, and displays the probability of post-release employment
stratified by work history and the nature of offenders’ ties to relatives. Looking
12. In theory, much like parents and other relatives in one’s social network, a spouse or intimate
partner also perhaps represents a tie that facilitates job attainment (Lin, 2001). However, this idea
is not fully articulated in theory, thus we largely focus on relations with the family of origin in this
regard. Recall that Table 3 shows that offenders who are involved in an intimate relationship are
more likely to be employed, which is consistent with theoretical expectations. We created product
terms between intimate ties and frequent unemployment and between intimate ties and educa-
tional attainment in order to examine whether intimate partner ties moderate the effects of defi-
cits in personal capital on employment. The two interaction terms failed to reach statistical
significance, suggesting that intimate partners do not play a significant role in moderating the
effect of educational attainment or work history on the acquisition of a job.
13. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this potential explanation.
14. We examined the possibility that the findings in Table 2 with regard to family ties and employ-
ment may not be generalizeable across time points during the post-release period. Common to reen-
try research of this type, we use static measures of post-release conditions in our analysis, while
recidivism is a time-varying outcome. However, the nature of the post-release context likely
changes over time, which may limit the predictive efficacy of our fixed measures. Indeed, the
effects noted in Table 2 may be time-dependent. To gain some insight into this possibility, we re-
estimated the models in Table 2 but restricted the outcome to capture recidivism at 6-, 12-, and 18-
month time periods. In other words, we estimated Models 1 and 2 in Table 2 with the outcome
measure censored at three different periods. Results from the supplementary analyses were very
similar to those reported here, with the exception of the drug abuse history variable—it was positive
and significant in the 6- and 12-month models but not in the other set of models restricted at 18
months. These results are not shown owing to space concerns; however, they are available upon
request from the authors.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 401
at the pair of vertical bars situated on the left side of the figure above the
heading “frequently unemployed”, the predicted probability of employment for
those with poor quality ties to their relatives is (.35) versus (.54) for those with
good quality ties. Moving to the right side of the figure, the two bars positioned
above the heading “stable employment” indicate that the predicted probability
of post-release employment is (.61) for those who had poor ties versus (.78) for
those who had good quality ties. This analysis suggests that, controlling for their
employment history, offenders with good quality ties to their relatives are at an
advantage with regard to acquiring post-release employment—these relational
ties not only benefit offenders with a relatively viable work history, but also
those with an instable pre-prison work history. As the diagram indicates, with-
out a provision of good quality ties, parolees with an instable pre-prison work
history have a lower predicted probability of job attainment in the post-release
context.
Figure 2 Effects of ties to relatives on post-release employment by history of pre-prison employment: predicted probabilities.
Discussion and Conclusion
Extant research suggests that family members are a meaningful component of
offenders’ social networks in the post-prison context; in fact, ties to family
are a persistent correlate of post-release success. This evidence prompts
questions about the nature of the processes through which family ties affect
Figure 2 Effects of ties to relatives on post-release employment by history of pre-
prison employment: predicted probabilities.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

402 BERG AND HUEBNER
recidivism. Although criminological research has theorized the meaning of the
link between familial ties and recidivism, to date only a small number have
empirically investigated the mechanisms by which these ties alter post-
release behavior.
In the current study, we employed an integrated theoretical framework
involving social capital and criminological theories in order to develop a series
of hypotheses. Specifically, we sought to resolve questions regarding whether
social ties connect offenders with jobs, and in turn indirectly shape recidivism
risk. The analyses uncovered three main conclusions to this end. First, offenders
who were employed and had good quality ties to relatives were less likely to
recidivate. Second, offenders with good quality ties to relatives were more
likely to be employed in the follow-up period. Third, a history of frequent
unemployment reduced post-release employment; however, this effect was
moderated by good quality ties to relatives. Specifically, a history of frequent
unemployment had a strong negative effect on post-release job attainment;
however, the magnitude of this effect was significantly weaker among those
with good quality ties to their relatives.
The findings of this study have several implications for theory and future
research on prisoner reentry and recidivism. First, the findings build on recent
empirical developments relating to the role of familial social ties in the etiology
of recidivism. For instance, a study by Bales and Mears (2008) found that
inmates who were visited in prison had lower rates of recidivism and these
effects were more pronounced when visitation was made by offenders’ family
members. Assuming that the familial interaction occurring during periods of
visitation is transferred beyond the prison walls into the post-release setting,
the current findings suggest that one way in-prison visitation promotes desist-
ence isby acting as a vehicle through which offenders gain access to the job
market (see Glaser, 1964, pp. 214–216). Although beyond the scope of this
study, it is reasonable to posit that information is perhaps transmitted during in-
prison visits between inmates and their families regarding potential sources of
employment (see also Shapiro & Schwartz, 2001). By procuring job arrange-
ments while imprisoned, released offenders reenter free society already teth-
ered to family networks and also enter the job marketplace on a more solid
footing (Glaser, 1964). Taken together, these findings highlight the need for a
continuum of broad-based family support programs that include parents,
spouses, and extended family members.
Second, the findings fail to support the notion that familial ties bear directly
upon recidivism. While ties to relatives significantly reduced recidivism, once
employment was included in the model, the effects of these ties were reduced
and were no longer statistically significant. This finding is consistent with recent
qualitative research which suggests that the social support provided by family
members is a condition that motivates offenders to immerse themselves into
more conventional life domains (see Giordano et al., 2002; Maruna, 2001; see
Shover, 1996). Hence, it may be that the processes of social control, support,
and identity transformation provided by family ties may motivate offenders to
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 403
attain legitimate work (see Maruna, 2001, pp. 122–123). In this way, family
social processes may not be direct importance for offenders’ behavior per se,
but have a more meaningful influence on their involvement in roles—i.e.,
holding a job—consistent with leading a conventional lifestyle (Shover, 1996).
However, there is an alternative explanation in the literature for the null
effects of family ties on recidivism. The literature suggests that the social
support family ties supply to reentering offenders may perhaps grow more
salient with the passage of time. Owing to the fact that offender’s intent to “go
straight” was not authentic in the past, observers note that offenders’ family
members sometimes feel suspicious and reluctant to dedicate much of their
time and effort to being an agent of reform (see Braman, 2004; Glaser, 1964;
Maruna, 2001, p. 156). But as offenders demonstrate their dedication to confor-
mity in concrete ways, some studies find that family members subsequently
increase their level of commitment to facilitating offender’s successful transi-
tion into society. For instance, Farrall (2004, pp. 66–67) noted that employment
“changed others opinions” of offenders resolve to abstaining from crime. In one
case, an offender’s family “no longer saw him as a druggie” once he began
working steadily at a job, this in turn enhanced the quality of the relationship
between he and his family (see also Glaser, 1964, p. 221).
15
If the degree of
social support that families supply is contingent upon offenders’ demonstration
of reform, then this would suggest that perhaps family ties help offenders pene-
trate the job market and employment in turn also enables a more resourceful
relationship between the offender and their family (Farrall, 2004). In this way,
family ties and job attainment are mutually beneficial to one another. Few have
examined these ideas systematically, hence they warrant future research.
We uncovered a nuanced set of findings with regard to the effects of family
ties on offending and employment—ties to relatives but not parents were impor-
tant predictors of recidivism and job attainment. Research on adult child–parent
relations suggests that parental support to adult children commonly involves the
exchange of emotional support and companionship, especially among older chil-
dren from poorer families (Lye, 1996). It is possible that this unique provision of
support paradoxically diminishes offenders’ need to find employment and gain
both material and financial independence.
16
Ultimately, this may have detri-
mental effects on whether they are able to desist from offending in the post-
release environment. In addition, the analyses showed that offenders with
strong marital ties are also more likely to gain employment upon release.
Neither social capital nor criminological theory makes explicit assumptions
about whether ties with parents versus other relatives (including intimate part-
ners) are most relevant to prisoner reentry. Some empirical evidence suggests
that offenders are most likely to rely on assistance from their parents, particu-
larly their mothers upon release (Visher et al., 2008), whereas other research
15. In fact, Ericson (1977, p. 24) asserts that “employment is the indication of respectability” it
signifies to the wider community that offenders have made an alignment with legitimate society.
16. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for prompting this idea.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

404 BERG AND HUEBNER
has shown that reentering offenders commonly turn to siblings and cousins in
part because their parents are either enfeebled or deceased (Braman, 2004;
Farrall, 2004; Glaser, 1964; Irwin, 2005; Maruna, 2001; Shover, 1996). In addi-
tion, the literature linking marriage to positive outcomes on parole is quite
strong, yet data show that few high-risk offenders are married before prison and
even fewer sustain marriages following incarceration (Huebner, 2005). This
project represents an initial inquiry into the role of family ties in prisoner reen-
try; we encourage future research to pay closer attention to the characteristics
of the actors embedded within offender networks in order to develop this line
of work further.
Finally, our observation that ties to relatives attenuated some of the negative
effects of inadequate work history on post-release employment highlights the
utility of social capital theory for understanding job attainment among reenter-
ing offenders. These results mirror those frequently reported using non-offender
samples, suggesting that while credentials (i.e., work history) are significant
predictors of job attainment, the people one knows are perhaps equally or even
more important when it comes to finding a job (Granovetter, 1974; Lin, 2001). In
fact, recall that the interaction terms indicated that irrespective of pre-prison
employment history, those with quality ties to family had a higher predicted
probability of being employed in the post-release setting. On a practical level,
these findings suggest that in the absence of good quality ties, reentering
offenders with insufficient credentials have poor prospects of finding a steady
job. Consequently, their risk for recidivism is relatively high. With regard to
reentry programming, this implies that by developing close ties between reen-
tering offenders and people who have a strong traditional obligation to offer
assistance, such as family members, offenders might be more successful at find-
ing opportunities in conventional arenas. Future research should build upon this
study by isolating the precise way these and other social ties in offenders’
networks (i.e., friends, community leaders) alleviate barriers to employment.
Before concluding, it is important to illuminate the caveats to our study. First,
alternative explanations might question the validity of the results uncovered in
Tables 2 and 3. It is possible that employment, family ties, and recidivism are all
symptoms of an underlying unobservable trait, including low self-control, sensa-
tion seeking, or risk tasking (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Under these circum-
stances, the observed statistical relationships are spurious and explained by
unobserved heterogeneity. Put differently, this would mean that parolees who
secure employment compared to those who do not would differ from one another
according to an unobserved trait, a trait which would also confound the negative
effect of employment on recidivism. Empirical researchers have found, however,
that the link between employment, various types of social ties, and criminal
behavior remains strong notwithstanding rigid methodological controls for unob-
served propensity or selection (Horney et al., 1995; Laub & Sampson, 2003,
Uggen, 1999; cf. Uggen et al., 2005, p. 213). Furthermore, we included measures
(i.e., substance abuse, arrest record, antisocial attitudes, mental health condi-
tions) which, existing research suggests, represent viable proxies for unobserved
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 405
propensity (see DeLisi, 2005; cf. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Matsueda, Gartner,
Piliavin & Polakowski, 1992; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002). This strategy
provided us with added confidence in the validity of our findings. Proxies, of
course, are no substitute for true experimental designs; in the future research
should attempt to isolate the extent to which propensity or self-selection
contributes to the relationships uncovered here.
Second, our measures of social ties (parental ties, ties to relatives, and inti-
mate partner ties) have the important advantage of capturing both the quality
and presence of the network tie, still they cannot tell us about the role of key
actors within the tie in facilitating reentry outcomes. For example, our measure
of ties to relatives includes a broad array of potential individuals; therefore, we
can only comment on the cluster of individuals who fall under this classification
and are not able to identify whether cousins, aunts, uncles, or grandparents are
important actors in one’s social network. Furthermore, our measures of post-
prison social conditions—similar to other research of this type—are static and
hence do not capture the dynamic nature of the post-release period. For exam-
ple, we assess social relationships at the two-week mark when the LSI-R was
administered, yet at this time-point these relationships may be of a different
quality, perhaps less conflicted and more supportive, than at a later time-point
when the stressors of post-release life may be more fully realized (Farrell,
2004). Likewise, the measure of post-prison employment would be a stronger
indicator if it included data on the quality and nature of employment across
repeated time-points in the post-release period (see also Note 16). Plus, we are
not able to capture the sample members’ attachment to work, which may shape
their employment experiences and ultimately recidivism; however, there is
existing research to suggest that even low-wage work can be important for most
offenders (Uggen, 2000). This study is an initial attempt to gain a more
complete understanding of social ties and reentry, but in order to develop this
line of work further, future research should adopt measures that identify the
family members who play a prominent role in offenders’ release and take addi-
tional steps to quantify the dynamic nature of employment experiences.
In conclusion, the goal of this research was to further explore the mecha-
nisms by which social ties affect criminal trajectories and post-release
outcomes. As noted extensively in the literature, incarceration can be a driving
force in the pathway of chronic offending through its corrosive effect on
conventional opportunities and relations. Laub and Sampson (2003, p. 291)
assert that what is needed is a “series of mechanisms to bring offenders back
into the institutional fabric of society.” Our findings suggest that by facilitating
job attainment, familial social ties, as well as marriage, we may break the cycle
of prison to unemployment and thereby stymie the pathway of state depen-
dence leading from prison to reoffending. Although more research is needed to
illuminate the specific mechanisms that link social ties to employment, this
research suggests that strengthening offenders’ social relationships may have
important implications for job attainment, and may be one possible path to
desistance.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

406 BERG AND HUEBNER
References
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminals offend: A general theory of crime and delinquency.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Andrews, D., & Botna, J. A. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society:
Does visitation reduce recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
45, 287–321.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Burnett, R. (2004). To re-offend or not to re-offend? The ambivalence of convicted prop-
erty offenders. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment:
Pathways to offender reintegration. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
Bushway, S., Stoll, M., & Weiman, D. F. (2007). Barriers to reentry? The labor market for
released prisoners in post-industrial America. New York: Russell Sage.
Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places and poor health: The mediating role of social
networks and social capital. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1501–1516.
Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 34, 187–220.
DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eckland-Olson, S., Supancic, M., Campbell, J., & Lenihan, K. (1983). Postrelease
depression and the importance of familial support. Criminology, 21, 253–275.
Ericson, R. (1977). Social distance and reaction to criminality. British Journal of
Criminology, 17, 16–29.
Farrall, S. (2004). Social capital and offender reintegration: Making probation desistence
focused. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways
to offender reintegration (pp. 57–84). Portland, OR: Willan.
Finestone, H. (1967). Reformation and recidivism among Italian and Polish criminal
offenders. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 575–588.
Furstenberg, F. (2005). Banking on families: How families generate and distribute social
capital. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 809–821.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of adult offender
recidivism. What works? Criminology, 34, 575–607.
Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., & Rudolph, J. (2002). Gender, crime and desistance:
Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107,
990–1064.
Glaser, D. (1964). Effectiveness of a probation and parole system. Indianapolis, IN:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berekely: University of California Press.
Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Morash, M. (2004). Poverty, state capital, and recidivism
among women offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 185–208.
Holzer, H. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects for less educated workers. New
York: Sage.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 407
Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2001). Will employers hire ex-offenders?
Employer preferences, background checks, and their determinants (JCPR Working
Papers 238). Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty
Research.
Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short term:
Intra-individual variability to crime and its relation to local life circumstances.
American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673.
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Applied survival analysis: Regression modeling of
time to event data. New York: Wiley.
Huebner, B. M. (2005). The effect incarceration on marriage and work over the life
course. Justice Quarterly, 22, 281–303.
Irwin, J. (2005). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class. Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Langan, P., & Levin, D. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to
age 70. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Lofland, J. (1969). Deviance and identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lye, D. (1996). Adult child–parent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 79–102.
Malik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental,
and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., & Toch, H. (2005). The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process. In
J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 139–178).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Matsueda, R., Gartner, R., Piliavin, I., & Polakowski, M. (1992). The prestige of criminal
and conventional occupations: A subcultural model of criminal activity. American
Sociological Review, 57, 752–770.
Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1997). A symbolic interactionist theory of role transitions,
role commitments, and delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Advances in
criminological theory, vol. 7, developmental theories of crime and delinquency
(pp. 163-213). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Matza, D. (1969). Becoming deviant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meisenhelder, T. (1977). An exploratory study of exiting from criminal careers.
Criminology, 15, 319–334.
Naser, R., & Visher, C. (2006). Family members experiences with incarceration and
reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7, 20–31.
Nelson, M., Dees, P., & Allen, C. (1999). The first month out. New York: Vera Institute of
Justice.
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108,
937–975.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home. New York: Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, J., & Rosenfeld, R. (2008). Parole, desistance from crime and community
integration. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, National Research Council.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern society. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

408 BERG AND HUEBNER
Rosenbaum, J., Kariya, T., Settersten, R., & Maier, T. (1990). Market and network
theories of the transition from high school to work: Their application to
industrialized societies. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 263–299.
Rubenstein, G. (2001). Getting to work: How TANF can support ex-offender parents in
the transition to self-sufficiency. Washington, DC: Legal Action Center.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Shapiro, C., & Schwartz, M. (2001). Coming home: Building on family connections.
Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 52–61.
Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. London:
Westview Press.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change
and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, P., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A
meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and
Public Policy, 8, 183–208.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E., Farrington, D., & Wikstrom, P. (2002). Risk
and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 111–123.
Sullivan, M. (1989). Getting paid: Youth crime and work in the inner city. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Sullivan, E., Mino, M., & Nelson, K. (2002). Families as a resource in recovery from drug
abuse: An evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. Washington, DC: Vera Institute of
Justice.
Thurow, L. (1975). Generating inequality. New York: Basic Books.
Uggen, C. (1999). Ex-offenders and the conformist alternative: A job quality model of
work and crime. Social Problems, 46, 127–151.
Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model
of age, employment and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67, 529–546.
Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (2005). Work and family perspectives on reentry.
In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 209–243),
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Umberson, D. (1987). Family Status and health social behaviors: Social control as a
dimension of social integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 308–319.
Visher, C., & Courtney, S. (2006). Cleveland prisoners’ experiences returning home.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, C., Debus, S., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after release: A longitudinal
study of releasees in three states (Research brief). Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute, Justice Policy Center.
Visher, C., Kachnowski, V., La Vigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004). Baltimore prisoners
experiences returning home. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, C., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding
individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113.
Vose, B., Cullen, F., & Smith, P. (2008). The empirical status of the level of service
inventory. Federal Probation, 72, 22–29.
Warr, M. (1998). Life course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36,
183–215.
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties
and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558–588.
West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prison inmates at midyear 2008 – statistical tables.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

REENTRY AND RECIDIVISM 409
Variables Description
Stable living
arrangements
The item is scored on a three-level ordinal scale. Scores of (3) are
assigned if the offender expresses satisfaction with home; has long-term
plans to continue living there takes pride in their home or takes measures
to increase value or comfort. Scores of (2) are assigned if the offender is
satisfied with living arrangements but is not expressing complete
satisfaction, has been there only a short time or willing to move if a better
place comes along. Scores of (1) are assigned if the offender is dissatisfied
or indifferent regarding current conditions, if they are in temporary
housing, making few efforts to improve the home or the environment, if
they like the residence but are living with antisocial others. Score of (0)
are assigned if the offender displays extreme dissatisfaction with living
arrangements, if they claim they are only staying there temporarily, they
are homeless, or living with antisocial others.
Antisocial
attitudes
The item is scored on a three-level ordinal scale. Scores of (0),
satisfactory situation, are assigned if an offender places an emphasis on
the negative consequences of law violation, if they accept responsibility
for their own actions, and if the offender rejects justification for law
violation. Scores of (1), relatively satisfactory situation, are given if an
offender’s recent behavior and self-disclosure indicate pro-social
inclinations, if the offender has a sense of respect for rules beyond just
“talking the talk” and if the individual has some awareness of the effects
of criminal behavior on the lives of others. Scores of (2), a relatively
unsatisfactory situation, are determined by whether the offender
expresses guilt for the victims, but mixed expression of concern (e.g., I
was in the wrong place at the wrong time or I wish I hadn’t been caught)
and if the offender says that they value pro-social behavior, but is acting
in contrast to that by breaking the law, defying authority. Finally, scores
of (3), a very unsatisfactory situation, are assigned if an offender places
emphasis on the usefulness of criminal activity, if they express
rationalizations for law violations and do not appear to have the ability to
be genuinely sensitive to the feelings and wishes of others including
victims of criminal behavior, if they are hostile toward the police or
courts, if they explain prior offenses with no guilt or remorse, or if they
have self-identified as a criminal.
Mental health
problems
According to the LSI-R scoring guide, examples of moderate mental health
problems may include mild anxiety or mild depression. Also, according to
the scoring guide severe mental health problems are detected by
observing the following factors: excessive sweating, extreme passivity or
aggression, verbal abusiveness, odd or strange verbalizations, very slow
or very fast speech, rambling conversations, auditory or visual
hallucinations, delusional thinking. Moreover, DOC officials assessed
severe interference based on in-prison psychiatric reports assessed by
medical staff.
Appendix 1. Supplementary Variable Coding Information from the LSI-R
Scoring Guide
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014

410 BERG AND HUEBNER
Variables Description
Ties to
relatives and
parental ties
These two items were originally coded on a three-item ordinal scale: (0)
unsatisfactory, (1) relatively unsatisfactory, (2) relatively satisfactory,
and (3) highly satisfactory. According to the LSI-R scoring criterion, a
score of (0) is given to relationships that are absent, hostile, punishing,
or uncaring, or in cases when no contact is maintained, or if the offender
has contact but the family condones antisocial attitudes; a score of (1) is
given to relations marked by significant conflicts, dissatisfaction, or
indifference regarding the relationship on either part; when there is
irregular contact or personal contact; a score of (2) is given to
relationships that are mostly reward, positive, and when there are good
attempts at caring and positive influence with regular contact; and
finally, scores of (3) are given to relationships that are highly satisfying,
with obvious caring and positive influence, and one in which the offender
maintains regular contact. The measure was subsequently recoded into a
binary indicator (see Table 1).
Intimate
partner
relationships
This item was scored on a four-level ordinal coding scheme. Relationships
are coded as very unsatisfactory (0) if it is unpleasant or hostile and
includes a history of, or recent abuse; relatively unsatisfactory (1) if
there are conflicts or problems with the partner, significant stressors, or
ambivalence regarding continuing the relationship, and includes
offenders who are single but lonely; relatively satisfactory (2) if the
relationship is mostly rewarding and caring, and this group includes men
who are single but wish to become involved in a relationship; and highly
satisfactory (3) if the relationship is highly satisfying and all partners are
effectively able to deal with conflict.
Appendix 1. (continued)
Downloaded by [University of Missouri - St Louis] at 10:49 09 May 2014