Parole, Neighborhood and Reentry Outcomes: A Contextualized Analysis

• Date: 01 May 2021
• Published date: 01 May 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20946928
• Author: Lin Liu
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20946928

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(6-7) 741 –762

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20946928

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Parole, Neighborhood

and Reentry Outcomes: A

Contextualized Analysis

Lin Liu1

Abstract

Compared to a large body of literature on the location-sensitivity of policing, relatively

less effort has been made to examine whether parole practice is intertwined with

the context of neighborhood. Based on longitudinal data of released prisoners, the

current study examines the location contingency of parole efficacy in the context of

reentry, focusing on the outcomes of recidivism and illicit drug use. Findings suggest

that net of the effects of risk factors such as financial difficulty and insufficient family

support, respondents who returned to less cohesive communities reported receiving

a significantly lower level of support from parole officers. Moreover, parole officers’

support exhibited a significant protective effect against recidivism, and this protective

effect was not universal but contextual: Parole officers’ support demonstrated a

diminished protective effect for released prisoners who returned to disordered

communities. Implications for correction practice and policymaking are presented.

Keywords

reentry, recidivism, substance use, parole, neighborhood

Introduction

As one of the many consequences of the U.S. “imprisonment binge”—a prolonged

period of mass incarceration from the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the

21st century, the U.S. prison population increased from 330,000 in 1980 to over

2.2 million in 2008 (Lutze et al., 2014; Stahler et al., 2013). It should be noted that

incarceration is only one of numerous forms of punishment. If we included the

population under community supervision (e.g., probation or parole), a staggering

1Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lin Liu, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th

St, Miami, FL 33199, USA.

Email: lindyliu@udel.edu

946928IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20946928International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyLiu

research-article2020

742 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(6-7)

seven million adults are under the supervision of the correctional system (Begun et al.,

2016). About 80% of released prisoners will be under parole supervision or other

forms of community supervision, which lasts an average of about two years in the U.S.

(Hughes et al., 2001; Paparozzi, & Guy, 2009; Petersilia, 2003). Despite various forms

of post-release supervision, a troubling 60% of released prisoners under community

supervision will return to prison in five years (Markman et al., 2016). How to best

integrate former prisoners back into society is one of the most pressing issues for

researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

While the majority of reentry studies test desistance theories (e.g., Farrington,

2001; Laub et al., 1998; Visher et al., 2005; Western et al., 2001) or evaluate correction

programs (e.g., Grattett et al., 2008; Hamilton & Belenko, 2019; Hanrahan et al., 2005;

Steen et al., 2013; Van Stelle & Goodrich, 2009), a relatively thinner line of research

attention has been paid to go beyond individual attributes and examine the interplay of

community context and correction supervision. We do not know whether parole super-

vision is a universal experience or contextual based on the community environment of

the parolee. Extant studies have demonstrated that criminal justice practice is sensitive

to community location; nonetheless, they are primarily from policing studies (Bass,

2001; Brunson, 2007; Brunson & Miller, 2006; Klinger et al., 2016; Smith, 1986). The

current study speaks to these literature gaps by integrating the concepts of community

context and parole practice to explain parolees’ reentry outcomes. Before reviewing

the literature, it is important to note other ways this research will advance understand-

ing of prisoner reentry and reintegration.

First, extant studies on neighborhood conditions and reentry primarily use neighbor-

hood structural/economic characteristics (e.g., income and poverty rate) to capture the

community context (Hipp et al., 2010; Hipp & Yates, 2009; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006;

Stahler et al., 2013; Tillyer & Vose, 2011). This leaves neighborhood social cohesion

and networks—the core elements that inhibit crime as posited by elaborations of the

social disorganization perspective (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Maxwell et al., 2018;

Sampson et al., 1997)—an under-investigated research question. In this study, parolees’

self-reported measurements of neighborhood cohesion and disorder are used to capture

their neighborhood context rather than structural measurements such as neighborhood

unemployment and poverty rate. This methodological approach is quite different from

that used in other social disorganization studies, yet is uniquely suited to answer the

research question of neighborhood contextual effect on parolees’ reentry. The act of an

individual should be understood based on his or her subjective cognition of the social

circumstances (Agnew, 1992; Merton, 1938). Given that the current study focuses on

individual respondents’ reentry outcomes, their perceived community context can legit-

imately shed light on how this contextual influence affects their reentry outcomes.

Second, past integrative studies on neighborhood structural and individual risk

factors for reentry controlled individual respondents’ demographic factors in the

model; nevertheless, it is largely unknown whether neighborhood-level influence

still exhibits a significant effect on reentry outcomes when respondents’ financial

difficulty and family support are controlled. To sever a criminal past, released pris-

oners have to overcome a wide scope of challenges such as family’s rejection (Austin