Strain During Reentry: A Test of General Strain Theory Using a Sample of Adult Former Prisoners

• Author: Lin Liu,Christy A. Visher,Daniel J. O’Connell
• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/00328855211029652
• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855211029652

The Prison Journal

2021, Vol. 101(4) 420 –442

© 2021 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855211029652

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Strain During Reentry:

A Test of General

Strain Theory Using

a Sample of Adult

Former Prisoners

Lin Liu1, Christy A. Visher2,

and Daniel J. O’Connell2

Abstract

The majority of reentry studies focus on identifying different dimensions

of reentry needs among released prisoners. Less explored is the

mechanism by which unfulfilled reentry needs cause reentry failure.

Applying the general strain theoretical perspective, this study aims

to use an emotional and psychological prism to explain why released

prisoners are likely to experience reentry failure when their reentry

needs are not met. Findings demonstrate that the strains from financial

difficulty and family neglect are positively associated with post-release

criminal propensity, and depression noticeably mediated the effects of

strains. Implications for correctional policymaking and future research

are discussed.

Keywords

general strain theory, strain during reentry, post-release criminal propensity

1Florida International University, Miami, USA

2University of Delaware, Newark, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lin Liu, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University,

Modesto A. Maidique Campus, MARC-270, Miami, FL 33199, USA.

Email: linliu@fiu.edu

1029652TPJXXX10.1177/00328855211029652The Prison JournalLiu et al.

research-article2021

Liu et al. 421

Introduction

The United States (U.S.) “imprisonment binge”—a prolonged period of mass

incarceration from the last two decades of the 20th century to the beginning

of the 21st century—has led the U.S. to the top of incarceration rankings

compared with other industrialized and democratic nations (Lurigio, 2016;

Pratt, 2009). One consequence of mass incarceration is the high economic

cost of housing large prison populations; both federal and state governments

came to the realization that the budget constraints and enormous government

corrections expenditures were incompatible (Gottschalk, 2011). According

to the findings by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the year 2008 witnessed

the start of a decarceration era (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Currently, about

600,000 former prisoners are reentering society each year (Kaeble & Cowhig,

2018). Individuals reentering society from prison face insurmountable hur-

dles to survive socially and financially, and too often they find themselves

caught in “the revolving door” of corrections (Muth et al., 2016; Western,

2018). Past studies document various collateral damages of a criminal record,

such as housing barriers (Bushway, 2004; LeBel, 2017), lack of immediate

family support (Austin & Irwin, 2001; Liu & Visher, 2019), and limited

employment opportunities (Duwe & Clark, 2014; Liu, Visher, et al., 2019;

Visher et al., 2004).

The majority of reentry studies explain reentry outcomes by the fulfillment

of reentry needs. The primary reentry needs include housing (e.g., Clark,

2007; Harding & Harding, 2006), employment (e.g, Lucken & Ponte, 2008;

Visher et al., 2006), family support (Liu & Visher, 2019), and substance abuse

treatment (e.g., Wodhal, 2006). When released prisoners’ reentry needs are not

met, they are at a higher risk of recidivism and other forms of reentry failure.

However, few studies have moved beyond the task of identifying sources of

reentry needs to the task of unraveling how these unfulfilled needs can lead

to reentry failure. Do individuals experience emotional disturbance when their

reentry needs are not met? How this emotional disturbance is related to the

risk of reentry failure? These questions remain to be answered.

The primary purpose of this study is to test the applicability of general

strain theory (thereafter GST) in the context of reentry. As one of three main

traditions of criminological theory (strain, learning, and control), GST eluci-

dates the emotional, social, and psychological processes of deviance (Agnew,

1992, 2001, 2013). With the focus of people’s affective responses to negative

life experiences, this theory can highlight the nexus of former prisoners’

stress during reentry, negative emotion, and reentry outcome (Agnew, 1992,

2001). GST asserts that certain strains, such as events or conditions disliked

by the individual, increase the likelihood of crime. As a general theory, this

theory has been applied in empirical tests that focus on both youth (e.g.,