Assessing the Relative Influence of Individual Attitudes, Social Supports, and Neighborhood Context on Reentry Outcomes: What Changes Matter Most?

• Author: Michael S. Caudy,Jill Viglione,Lucas M. Alward
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854819901158
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 11, November 2020, 1487 –1508.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819901158

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1487

ASSESSING THE RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF

INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES, SOCIAL SUPPORTS,

AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ON REENTRY

OUTCOMES

What Changes Matter Most?

LUCAS M. ALWARD

MICHAEL S. CAUDY

JILL VIGLIONE

University of Central Florida

Using the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) data set, the current study examined the relationship

between internal change factors, including agency, readiness for change, and legal cynicism, and four reentry outcomes

(recidivism, reincarceration, drug use, and treatment participation). The study also assessed the impact of external change

factors, such as family support and perceived neighborhood quality on reentry outcomes. Using a hybrid model approach, we

found that within-individual changes in agency and family emotional support were significantly related to decreased self-

reported recidivism and reincarceration over time. Within-individual changes in family emotional support were also signifi-

cantly related to reductions in self-reported drug use and within-individual changes in readiness for change were positively

associated with treatment participation across the postrelease waves of the SVORI data. Between-individual results further

demonstrate the salience of change factors on reentry outcomes. Study findings inform desistance models and identify some

promising targets for reentry programming.

Keywords: reentry; social support; recidivism; substance use; treatment; agency

INTRODUCTION

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States embarked upon a grand social experiment by

replacing decades-long indeterminate sentencing practices with “tough on crime” laws, result-

ing in the use of imprisonment as the primary response to crime control (Clear & Frost,

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the Criminal Justice

and Behavior editorial staff for their thoughtful insight and recommendations for preparation of this article.

They would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Christy Visher for her willingness to grant them access to

the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) data and Dr. James Ray and Dr. Thomas Baker for

their feedback and recommendations regarding study methodology and analyses. Correspondence concerning

this article should be addressed to Lucas M. Alward, Department of Criminal Justice, College of Community

Innovation and Education, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive, Bldg. 80 Suite 311, Orlando,

FL 32816-1600; e-mail: lalward@knights.ucf.edu.

901158CJBXXX10.1177/0093854819901158Criminal Justice and BehaviorAlward et al. / What Changes Matter Most?

research-article2020

1488 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

2014; Garland, 2001). A consequence of using incarceration as the main crime control strat-

egy was an exponential increase in the U.S. prison population (Travis et al., 2014). With

mass incarceration dominating both academic and political discourse over the last several

decades (Clear, 2009; Travis et al., 2014; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013), this overreliance

on incarceration created a crisis of mass reentry. Since 2002, more than 600,000 individuals

have been released to the community from state and federal incarceration annually (Carson

& Golinelli, 2013).

Despite federal, state, and local efforts to improve reentry processes and outcomes, con-

temporary research continues to document exceedingly high recidivism rates. In a 9-year

follow-up of state justice-involved individuals released in 2005, five in six (83%) formerly

incarcerated individuals were rearrested at least once (Alper et al., 2018). As a result, the

successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals remains a profound policy chal-

lenge for America’s criminal justice system (Petersilia, 2003; Visher & Travis, 2003). Given

high recidivism rates and increased spending on reentry programming, a need for continued

research examining factors associated with successful reentry outcomes remains pressing.

A growing body of empirical research has begun to identify predictors of reentry out-

comes and several theoretical models have been developed to aid in understanding indi-

vidual change and complex reentry processes (Lloyd & Serin, 2012; Serin et al., 2010; Serin

& Lloyd, 2009; Ward et al., 2004). Most extant models of change during reentry (e.g., the

Multifactor Offender Readiness Model [MORM], and Integrated Model of Transition to

Crime Desistance [IMTCD]) note the importance of both internal and external change fac-

tors; however, research has yet to fully establish the empirical validity of these models or

integrate them within the broader literature on desistance. The current study explores the

influence of internal change factors (agency, readiness for change, and legal cynicism) and

external change factors (neighborhood quality and family support) on four reentry out-

comes (recidivism, reincarceration, drug use, and treatment participation). This study exam-

ines whether within-individual changes in these variables are related to changes in reentry

outcomes over time. The goal is to provide a partial test of untested reentry change models

to inform programming and policy decisions. Identifying salient predictors of change dur-

ing reentry and integrating these findings into theoretical frameworks of change and/or

desistance is an important step toward building an empirical foundation that can adequately

inform reentry policy and practice.

LITERATURE REVIEW

MODELS OF CHANGE

Existing conceptual frameworks grounded within the desistance and treatment literatures

focus on how and why people change. Two models applicable to the current study, the MORM

(Ward et al., 2004) and the IMTCD (Serin et al., 2010; Serin & Lloyd, 2009), supplement

prior conceptualizations of the intricate and complex nature of desistance and reentry pro-

cesses. Ward and colleagues’ (2004) MORM model views readiness to change as a function

of both internal and external factors that interact. According to Ward and colleagues (2004),

behavior change occurs when individuals possess certain cognitive/affective behavior proper-

ties in combination with external environmental support. Specific internal readiness condi-

tions identified include cognitive factors (e.g., change beliefs, attitudes about treatment,

self-efficacy), affective factors (e.g., emotional regulation, guilt, shame), volitional factors