Social Capital Among Women Offenders

• Author: Merry Morash,Kristy Holtfreter,Michael D. Reisig
• Date: 01 May 2002
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986202018002004
• Published date: 01 May 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / May 2002Reisig et al. / SOCIAL NETWORKS

Social Capital Among Women Offenders

Examining the Distribution of Social Networks and Resources

MICHAEL D. REISIG

KRISTY HOLTFRETER

MERRY MORASH

Michigan State University

Studies investigating the trials and tribulations of women offenders in the United States are

becoming increasingly common. One theme in the literature is that successful reentry of women

offendersis dependent on support of social networks. Generally, social theorists posit that a vari-

ety of positiveoutcomes is associated with healthy social networks. For example, networks pro-

vide social structural resources (“social capital”), which in turn promote acquisition of skills and

knowledge(“human capital”) to achieve goals that would otherwise be unattainable. This article

investigates the differential distributionof social networks in terms of size and resources (i.e.,

support) across social groupings (e.g., race, age) using a sample of adult female felons. The

results show that (a) better educated and higher income offenders are members of larger social

networks, and (b) poorly educated women offenders, women with annual legal incomes below

$8,000, and younger offenders have access to lower levelsof support.

Until recently, the plight of women in the correctional setting has been

largely neglectedin the research literature. However, systematic assess-

ments of women offenders’needs and circumstances both in and outside the

prison walls have begun to emerge. This growing attention is linked to the

rapid increase in the number of women in American criminal justice systems.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999, pp. 5-6), women

accounted for approximately 20% of arrests in 1998 (total of 3.2 million),

16% of felony convictionsin state courts in 1996 (total of 160,470), and 16%

167

This research was supported by Grant No. 96-IJ-CX-0021 by the National Institute of Justice,

Officeof Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those

of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,Vol. 18 No. 2, May 2002 167-187

© 2002 Sage Publications

of the correctional population in 1998 (total of 951,900). In 1998, women

represented 21% of the offender population on probation and 12% of those on

parole.

The interest in women offenders is also tied to claims that gender-related

life circumstances and attributes require gender-responsivecorrectional pro-

gramming (Bloom & Covington, 1999; Covington, 1998; Holtfreter &

Morash, 2001; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998). Critics argue that “tradi-

tional correctional programs” are based on theories of male criminality.

Gender-responsive programs, in contrast, are designed to empower women

to challenge and overcome limiting stereotypes related to sex (in combina-

tion with race, ethnicity,poverty, and age). These programs support women’s

development of agency so they can effectively solve problems, some of

which are unique to or concentrated among women (e.g., intimate partner

violence and history of sexual abuse).

According to contemporary social theory, kin and nonkin social networks

provide social resources that can produce a variety of desirable outcomes,

including employment, access to training and education, as well as instru-

mental, social, and emotional support. More specifically, “social capital” is

embodied in the structure of social networks. Through network ties,

resources (e.g., information, personal contacts, and financial assistance) are

available to help members accomplish goals (Coleman, 1988, p. S95;

Greeley,1997, p. 587) and acquire new skills or knowledge (i.e., “human cap-

ital”). Social capital, however, is not evenly distributed across social net-

works. For example, tightly knit social networks with relatively inferior

socioeconomic standings are likely to be deficient in resources—or “poorer

in social capital” (Lin, 2000a, p. 787). Hagan and Coleman (2001, p. 362)

noted that little social capital is available to individuals returning to society

from prison and that the state should take strides to fill the gap. As is true for

men, women offenders frequently return to or serve out their sentences in

communities where social networks have been severely disrupted by formal

social controls, such as aggressive policing and heavy-handed sentencing

practices, resulting in incarceration (Rose & Clear, 1998). We find merit in

Hagan and Coleman’s claim but assert that it is important to first determine

which social groupings among offenders (in our case women offenders)

experience the highest capital deficits. Only after this is known can “state

capital” (i.e., social resources provided by the state) in the form of meaning-

ful correctional programming be targeted toward those offenderswho would

benefit the most from such efforts. Toinvestigate the differential distribution

of social networks and resources (i.e., social capital), we use recently col-

lected data consisting of in-person interviews from a sample of 402 women

felony offenders from Oregon and Minnesota.

168 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / May 2002