Family Matters: Moving Beyond “If” Family Support Matters to “Why” Family Support Matters during Reentry from Prison

• Author: Thomas J. Mowen,John H. Boman,Richard Stansfield
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427818820902
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Family Matters:

Moving Beyond

“If” Family Support

Matters to “Why”

Family Support

Matters during

Reentry from Prison

Thomas J. Mowen

1

, Richard Stansfield

2

,

and John H. Boman, IV

1

Abstract

Objectives: Informed by social control and differential coercion and social

support theories, we examine how multiple theoretically and methodolo-

gically distinct factors of family support relate to reincarceration, substance

use, and criminal offending during prison reentry. Method: Using four waves

of data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, we iden-

tified three separate factors of family support—interactional (e.g., providing

guidance and support), instrumental (e.g., providing housing and transpor-

tation), and emotional (e.g., providing love and belongingness). A series of

1

Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA

2

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Camden,

NJ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Thomas J. Mowen, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, 243 Williams

Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.

Email: tmowen@bgsu.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2019, Vol. 56(4) 483-523

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022427818820902

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

mixed-effects models examined how each form of family support related to

reincarceration, substance use, and criminal offending. Results: Findings

demonstrated that instrumental, but not interactional or emotional, sup-

port related to significantly lower odds of reincarceration and lower levels

of substance use and criminal offending. Interaction terms revealed that the

effect of instrumental family support is almost entirely independent, and not

interactive, on each outcome. Conclusions: Family support appears to relate

to prosocial reentry outcomes not because of emotional or interactional

bonds, but because families provide for the basic needs of returning indi-

viduals. Instrumental familial support mechanisms such as providing housing

and financial support appear more salient in promoting prosocial reentry

outcomes than mechanisms of emotional or interactional support.

Keywords

family support, prison ree ntry, differential coer cion and social support,

social control

The process of release from prison—called “reentry”—has received increas-

ing attention from researchers and policymakers alike (Lynch and Sabol

2004; Travis 2014). Despite a small decrease in the incarcerated population

over the past two years, the United States continues to incarcerate more

individuals than any other country in the world (Carson 2018). Because the

vast majorityof individuals who spendtime in prison will be released(Carson

and Anderson 2016; Travis 2005), understanding factors that promote suc-

cessful reintegration has become an important task for the development of

both theory and policy (see Seiter and Kadela 2003). Although research has

highlighted a number of dimensions as important for successful reintegration

including emplo yment (Seiter and Kad ela 2003; Uggen 2000), mental healt h

care (Mallik-Kane and Visher 2008),treatment and reentry preparation (Pre-

ndergast 2009; Robbins, Martin, and Surratt 2007), and desistance from

criminal peers (Boman and Mowen 2017), perhaps more so than any other

factor, family support has been highlighted as an extraordinarily vital com-

ponent for reentry success (see, generally, Arditti and Few 2006; Braman

2004; Breese, Ra’el, and Grant 2000; Naser and La Vigne 2006; Naser and

Visher 2006; Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999; Shapiro and Schwartz 2001;

Visher and Courtney 2007; Western et al. 2015).

The importance of family support has been highlighted in both qualita-

tive and quantitative research efforts using a variety of samples across the

484 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 56(4)

United States. Existing research has shown that family support relates to

decreased recidivism (Boman and Mowen 2017; Shollenberger 2009;

Visher and Courtney 2007), increased odds of employment (Berg and

Huebner 2011; Visher, Debus, and Yahner 2008), and better mental health

outcomes (Grieb et al. 2014; Wallace et al. 2016) during reentry. As Naser

and Visher (2006:20) find, “for most former prisoners, relationships with

family members are critical to successful reintegration.” In addition to a

moderate level of empirical support, these findings can be understood via

criminological theory. From the perspectives of both social control (Hirschi

1969) and differential coercion and social support (DCSS; Colvin, Cullen,

and Vander Ven 2002) theories, family members provide both strong affec-

tionate bonds (like emotional support and attachment) and important

mechanisms of social support (like housing, transportation, and financial

support) to the returning individual that se rve to reduce recidivism and

promote successful reentry outcomes.

Given the established empirical and theoretical support for the impor-

tance that family plays during the reintegration process, it is imperative

for researchers to not just ask if family support matters but also examine

why family support makes a difference during reentry. With a small hand-

ful of exceptions (Martinez 2006; Taylor 2016), the specific mechanisms

through which family matters during this process remain unclear. Is fam-

ily support important for reintegration because of emotional support char-

acterized by love, warmth, and affection? Alternatively, does family

support matter due to the presence of instrumental support–like financial

resources, transportation, and housing? Or do both perspectives carry

explanatory power? Consequently, a shift in focus to understanding why

family matters is an important step to take to enhance theoretical clarity

concerning the specific mechanisms through which family support matters

and to provide evidence for scholars to make sound and empirically

grounded policy recommendations.

Accordingly, the current study seeks to accomplish two goals. Using

longitudinal panel data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry

Initiative (SVORI), we first seek to examine how a variety of family

dynamics that broadly represent family support may constitute a series

of theoretically and empirically distinct subfactors of family support

(e.g., emotional or instrumental family support; see Martinez 2006).

Second, we seek to examine whether these different forms of family

support independently or interdependently relate to reincarceration as

well as self-reported substance use and criminal offending during the

reentry process.

Mowen et al. 485