Williams 1

Brianna Williams
Wright
ENC 3455
23 April 2014
Review Article: A Review of the Literature on Recidivism
INTRODUCTION
Due to the abundance of incarcerated individuals in the United States in both prisoner and
inmate populations, there is an abundance of research examining recidivism. "Recidivism is a
return to criminal behavior after release, and the effectiveness of corrections is usually measured
by recidivism rates" (Esperian, 2010, p. 320). A report published in the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2014) analyzing the recidivism of 30 states tracked over 400,000 prisoners released in
2005 until 2010. Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested
once in the five years after their release (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014, p. 1). Despite those
numbers, of the released prisoners tracked during that five year period: two-thirds were
rearrested for a new crime within three years; approximately 10.9% were arrested in another
state; and of those tracked, more than a third arrested within five years were arrested in the first
six months after their release, with 56.7% arrested by the end of the year. Of notable
consideration is the fact that recidivism rates, at least at the county level, are more difficult to
track because recidivists can be rearrested in counties and states other than the one of their prior
arrest(s). As a result recidivism rates can be close estimations of the actual figures.
To address the issue of recidivism research in areas such as criminal justice, psychology,
social work and many others report socio-economic status, length of incarceration, education
level of the individual, unemployment, and family contact and social support as influential

Williams 2

factors that contribute to recidivism (Esperian, 2010; La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005;
Spjelnes, Jung, Maguire, & Yamatani, 2012). Due to the many facets of recidivism research
interest remains in examining the causes, predictors, and effects involved with recidivism to
reduce the amount of individuals incarcerated. To that end, the purpose of this review article is
two-fold. First, this review article will discuss what the literature has revealed about the above
factors in relation to recidivism. Second, it will address how relationship education can be
implemented in prison and jail settings and serve as a practical and feasible solution for reducing
the likelihood of former prisoners and inmates recidivating; and could potentially assist with
mitigating the distress associated with their experiences of preparing for reentry into the
community.
MAIN ANALYSIS
In general, literature on recidivism has been inconsistent in making a distinction between
prisoner and inmate populations. Some studies make such distinction through stating the level of
offenses their participants were incarcerated for, while others utilized the terms prisoner and
inmate interchangeably. Therefore, for the purpose of time and similarities recognized in both
incarcerated populations, this review article also will not make the distinction between either
prisoner or inmate populations. Furthermore, this section will describe trends noted in the
literature.
Research examining recidivism has focused on providing treatments and interventions to
determine what factors contribute to prisoners and inmates recidivating. Although many factors
have been assessed, visitation, social support and familial relationships, and unemployment have
proved to be of primary importance when creating interventions that can make a more successful
reentry taking place towards the end of sentence, this refers to the process of an

Williams 3

incarcerated person returning to the community. The sections below address these areas, and
others topic from the literature, in more detail.

A. Treatments/Interventions and Unemployment

Aftercare and Treatment. Burdon, Messina, and Prendergast (2004) explored predictors
of inmate participation in aftercare and 12 month return-to-custody (RTC) using 4,155 inmates to
examine how effective a prison-based therapeutic community (TC) treatment would be. They
found that an important predictor in whether the inmates participated in the aftercare treatment
(or, the prison-based TC) was their motivation. Relatedly, if they participated in aftercare this
was also a predictor of their 12 month RTC.
Burdon et al. (2004) also found that inmates who reported having an alcohol or drug
disorder predicted whether they would participate in aftercare. Those who met the DSM-IV
criteria for an alcohol or drug related disorder showed higher rates of participating in aftercare
than those who did not (Burdon et al., 2004). Overall, the literature suggests that seeking help for
mental illness and participation in aftercare and other programs are important for a successful
reentry. It is particularly important that they are receptive to the treatment while in prisons
because once released, former prisoners rely heavily on the resources of their family members.

Unemployment. Wang, Mears, and Bales (2010) state how other researchers found that
employers have been reluctant to hire former prisoners; the manufacturing industry being an
exception. Due to this circumstance, Wang et al. (2010) claim that employment contexts (i.e. the
affects of labor market conditions at the time of release on the inmates capacity for employment)

Williams 4

can influence violent recidivism. Investigating the relationship between race-specific

employment contexts and recidivism, they found that Black ex-prisoners released to counties
with higher levels of Black male unemployment were more likely to recidivate for a violent
offense within 2 years after release (p. 1197). Comparably, they found there were no effects on
manufacturing employment rates for Black former prisoners, but violent recidivism was
associated with White ex-prisoner employment rates.
Ultimately, while more research could be done to investigate the race-specific
employment outcomes, what is indisputable is the fact that prior incarceration dramatically hurts
employment opportunities for former prisoners and inmates.

B. Familial Relationships and Social Support

While unemployment is detrimental to former prisoners successful reentry, of particular
concern for research on recidivism has been the investigation of visitation, family contact, social
capital, and social support. This is because these factors (and unemployment) appear to be the
primary contributors for why individuals recidivate. The goal is that by understanding and
implementing prison-based programs that target these areas of the inmates experience and
involving the family, inmates can have a more successful reentry.

Visitation. Visitation is a popular research area because it involves inmates coming in

contact with their family; examining this gives researchers an indication of how family contact
affects them. Bales and Mears (2008) examined several components of visitation: including
whether any visits occurred, the frequency and recency of visitation, and the type of visitor
received (e.g., family member, friend)and tested hypotheses about variation in the effects of

Williams 5

visitation (p. 289). They found that visitation, overall, reduces recidivism. More specifically,
their results showed that inmates showed reduced and delayed onset of recidivism when they
were visited by family and friends, and were visited over the course of many months rather than
a few months. Moreover, in comparison to those who had visits earlier in their sentence, inmates
who experienced visitation closer to the end of their sentence were associated with reduced
recidivism. Bales and Mearss research suggests that the type of visit, frequency, and recency of
it influence how likely an inmate is to recidivate.
This finding is consistent with research done by Cochran (2012), who also looked at the
timing and consistency of visitation, but examined the relationship between visitation and
misconduct trajectories. Reportedly, Cochrans results suggested that if inmates were not visited
at all or visited in the beginning of their sentence but not later, they were more likely to engage
in misconduct. By comparison, consistent visitation rendered the likelihood of inmates engaging
in misconduct. This trend is because consistent contact with family and friends assists in
maintaining their roles as a family member (Cochran, 2012; Wolff & Draine, 2004) and makes
the inmates more positive about successfully entering back into society.

Social Support. In addition to visitation, research also proposed examining the

heterogeneity of prisoner experiences in areas such as educational classes and job training
(Cochran, 2012). Although, Cochran does not specify what type of educational classes, current
and past research recommends and suggests the necessity of relationship education.
Research found that although former prisoners perceived their relationship with family to
be supportive, they lose their sense of self-efficacy when the family members offer them
informational support (Martinez & Christian, 2009). Also worth noting is that the family

Williams 6

members think of the informational support as a means of achieving success. This indicates that
family members and releasees communicate at cross-purposes; and that communication skills are
necessary in order for families to balance their expectations with those of the former prisoners.
In addition to informational support, Naser and La Vigne (2006) published research
asserting that released prisoners rely very heavily on their families for support in navigating
virtually every aspect of the reentry experience, from assistance with housing and employment to
financial support and overall encouragement (p. 102). This is to be expected since they are
released with very little means to support themselves and likely do not have the skills or
opportunity to readily seek employment; and if they do, finding and achieving employment
proves to be a challenge. What Naser and La Vignes research does clearly depict, however, is
that the family bears much of the burden once the inmate or prisoner is released. They discuss
further that prisoners close to the end of their sentences could benefit from social support and
services for themselves as well as the family (Naser & La Vigne, 2006). Social Support is
defined as the perceived or actual instrumental and/or expressive provisions supplied by the
community, social networks, and confiding partners (as cited in Spjeldnes, Maguire, Jung, &
Yamatani, 2012). That is, necessities such as shelter, food, clothing, money, or information.
According to Spjeldnes, Maguire, Jung, and Yamatani (2012), positive family social
support correlates with lower recidivism. It is for these reasons that there is a need for families,
and perhaps friends, to become involved in the reentry process. As such, research has
progressively focused on the improvement of social support and social relations for inmate
populations. Wolfe and Draine (2004) discuss the importance of social relations as follow:
Being connected to family members and friends offers tangible, as well as intangible,
benefits. Through social relations, individuals have the opportunity to gain access or
"stake claims" to resources that help them to function, to the extent possible,
independently. The types of resources that might be available through these social

Williams 7

relations include (1) emotional support that builds confidence, encourages perseverance,
and engenders feeling of safety and well-being; (2) caregiving, such as direct care or
care management for those with severe or chronic illness who have impaired function;
(3) direct access to housing, food, and clothing either through the giving of money or inkind support; and (4) gateway connections to others who have access to resources, such
as jobs and housing. Social relations, like money and education, are assets that have the
potential to affect an individual's health and well-being in the community. (pp. 457-458)
Social support is a crucial aspect for the inmates reentry into society that studies have been
working on providing relationship education for inmates. The more successful and supportive the
inmates social relations are, the less likely the will be to be recidivate.

C. Relationship Education.
Research has already found that marriages are more likely to fail because of
incarceration, and that this risk is even higher for first marriages (Lopoo & Western, 2005).
Recently, however, the creators of the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program
(PREP) created an adapted version of that program for inmates: PREP Inside and Out (Einhorn,
Williams, Stanley, Markman & Eason, 2008). Created for inmates who do and do not have
partners, PREP Inside and Out is a relationship education program that focuses on
communication skills, affect management, commitment, positive connections, fun, and
friendship (p. 344) and was offered to inmates in Oklahoma correctional facilities. As a result of
participating, inmates reported having less negative interactions, and higher relationship
confidence, dedication, communication skills, and feeling less lonely (Einhorn et al., 2008). They
also reported feeling capable of making their marriages work. Amidst the positive results, the
researchers still found that on average, inmates rated their confidence in talking things out and
working as a team less positively. So, in the midst of very high overall ratings of positive impact,
participants likely need more help with talking and working together (p. 351). That is

Williams 8

understandable outcome for an intervention that lasts 12 hours. However, it appears that brief
interventions are a starting point for improving the social support for inmate populations.
In a more recent study, Shamblem, Arnold, Mckiermanm Collins, and Strader (2013)
used an adaption of the Creating Lasting Families Connections Program (CLFCP) called:
Creating Lasting Families Marriage Enhancement Program (CLFMEP). Here, 144 married
couples, each with one spouse who was incarcerated, were assessed. The findings showed that:
both husbands and wives improved their relationship skills; husbands who participated improved
their relationship skills more than husbands who did not participate; and that their relationship
skills persisted even after the program ended (494).
Einhorn et al.s (2008) and Shamblem et al.s (2013) studies indicate that relationship
education can improve the relationships of inmates. However, further research should track the
couples over time and see whether these programs reduce or delay the likelihood of the partners
recidivating. It should also incorporate a jobs training component so that inmates and prisoners
can begin preparing themselves for employment after release.

CONCLUSION -- FUTURE RESEARCH

It goes without saying that recidivism is a multifaceted circumstance. Factors such as

unemployment, lack of and inconsistent visitation as well as lack of social support play major
roles in a persons susceptibility and likelihood of recidivating. Despite Shamblem et al.s (2013)
and Einhorn et al.s (2008) findings, there is still limited research examining the influence of
relationship education on recidivism. The goal, however, is that by providing relationship
education for inmates and families, inmates and their social networks will acquire or enhance

Williams 9

their communicative and decision making skills. Ultimately, the expectation is with these new
and enhanced skills the inmate can have a successful transition back into their community and
family, make more productive strides in finding employment, and make the conscious decision to
not recidivate.

Williams 10

References

Burdon, W. M., Messina, N. P., & Prendergast, M. L. (2004). The California treatment expansion
initiative: Aftercare participation, recidivism, and predictors of outcomes. The Prison
Journal, 84(1), 61-80. doi:10.1177/0032885503262455
Cochran, J. C. (2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship
between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 433-440.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.001z
Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30
states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf
Einhorn, L., Williams, T., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Eason, J. (2008). PREP inside and
out: Marriage education for inmates. Family Process, 47, 341 - 356.
Esperian, J. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. Journal of
Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334.
Lopoo, L. M., & Western, B. (2005). Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital
unions. Journal of Marriage & Family, 67(3), 721-734.
Martinez, D. J., & Christian, J. (2009). The familial relationships of former prisoners: Examining
the link between residence and informal support mechanisms. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 38(2), 201-224. doi:10.1177/0891241608316875
Naser, R. L., & La Vigne, N. G. (2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process:
Expectations and realities. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1), 93-106.
Spjeldnes, S., Jung, H., Maguire, L., & Yamatani, H. (2012). Positive family social support:
Counteracting negative effects of mental illness and substance abuse to reduce jail exinmate recidivism rates. Journal of Human Behavior in The Social Environment, 22(2),
130-147. doi:10.1080/10911359.2012.646846
Wang, X., Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Racespecific employment contexts and
recidivism. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 48(4), 1171-1211.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00215.x
Wolff, N., & Draine, J. (2004). Dynamics of social capital of prisoners and community reentry:
Ties that bind? Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10(3), 457.
doi:10.1177/107834580301000310