Transitions From Prison To Community

11 Jun 2003 19:39 AR AR190-SO29-05.tex AR190-SO29-05.
sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GJB/GCE

10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095931
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:89–113

doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095931
Copyright °c 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
First published online as a Review in Advance on June 4, 2003
TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY:

Understanding Individual Pathways
Christy A. Visher and Jeremy Travis

The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, Washington, District of Columbia 20037;
email: cvisher@ui.urban.org, jtravis@ui.urban.org
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003.29:89-113. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of Bristol on 01/22/15. For personal use only.
Key Words crime, prisoners, incarceration, recidivism, reentry

■ Abstract In 2002, over 600,000 individuals left state and federal prisons, four
times as many as were released in 1975. However, according to a national study,
within 3 years, almost 7 in 10 will have been rearrested and half will be back in prison,
either for a new crime or for violating conditions of their release. Clearly, an indi-
vidual’s transition from prison back into a home and into a community is difficult,
and avoiding crime can be the least of his or her problems. Understanding these path-
ways and the reasons for and the dimensions of an individual’s success or failure is
the focus of recent scholarly attention to the problem of “prisoner reentry,” the pro-
cess of leaving prison and returning to free society. However, most of the existing
research on prisoners’ lives after release focuses solely on recidivism and ignores the
reality that recidivism is directly affected by postprison reintegration and adjustment,
which, in turn, depends on four sets of factors: personal and situational characteris-
tics, including the individual’s social environment of peers, family, community, and
state-level policies. Moreover, individual transitions from prison to community are,
we suggest, best understood in a longitudinal framework, taking into account an indi-
vidual’s circumstances before incarceration, experiences during incarceration, and the
period after release—both the immediate experience and long-term situational circum-
stances. This review summarizes what we know about the four specified dimensions
and how they affect an individual’s transition from prison to community. The review
concludes with a call to the research community for interdisciplinary, multilevel, lon-
gitudinal studies of the processes of reintegration for former prisoners. Such research
may illuminate many dimensions of social life, including the effects of recent social
policies.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past generation, America embarked on a large-scale social experiment

with vast, unexamined consequences. We have increased the per capita rate of
imprisonment fourfold. After nearly 50 years of stability, the rate of incarceration
increased dramatically between 1973 and 2000, climbing from 110 per 100,000 to
470 per 100,000 at the turn of the century. In 2001, America posted a new record
of 1.3 million people held in prison.
0360-0572/03/0811-0089$14.00 89
11 Jun 2003 19:39 AR AR190-SO29-05.tex AR190-SO29-05.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GJB/GCE
90 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS
Figure 1 Sentenced prisoners admitted and released from federal and state prison
between 1977 and 2000. Source: The Urban Institute. Based on Bureau of Justice
Statistics national prisoner statistics.
With rare exception, the people we send to prison come home. Thus, the prison
buildup of the past two decades has resulted in many more people returning to
society who have spent time in prison. The magnitude of the problem is stunning:
In 2002, over 600,000 individuals left state and federal prisons, 4 times as many
as made similar journeys 25 years ago (Figure 1).
In many ways, today’s transitions from prison to community may be similar to
those that occurred before the prison boom. Indeed, ever since prisons were first
built, prisoners have faced the risks and opportunities inherent in rejoining the free
world. But the sheer scale of our experiment in incarceration has reframed some
age-old questions about the relationship between our society and those who have
broken the law.
One challenge is particularly critical: understanding the pathways of reintegra-
tion. How do we conceptualize the processes of reintegration? What should be the
status of a former prisoner who has paid his or her debt to society? What social sup-
ports, both private and governmental, are associated with successful reintegration?
How does the scale of imprisonment in America affect the pathways and processes
of reintegration? What do we learn about society by studying reintegration?
This review explores the individual transitions from prison to community. We
term this transition reentry, by which we mean the process of leaving prison and
returning to free society. Except those prisoners who are executed or die from
natural causes, all prisoners experience reentry. Reentry is neither a legal status
nor a form of supervision. Even those prisoners who are released straight to the
streets, without being placed on parole, experience reentry. For these prisoners,
reentry is a fact. Juxtaposed against this fact is the experience of reintegration,
TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 91
or the individual’s reconnection with the institutions of society, which is both a

process and a goal.
Scholars, policymakers, and practitioners have recently begun to pay serious
attention to the issues of prisoner reentry and reintegration [Petersilia & Travis
2001, Lynch & Sabol 2001b, Travis et al. 2001, Corrections Management Quar-
terly 2001 (special issue)]. In 2002, the federal government awarded $100 million
to the states to help them develop more effective reentry programs. Some cor-
rections professionals have embraced reentry as an “elevating goal” for the field
(Burke 2001). Others have termed the focus on prisoner reintegration “a storm
overdue” (Wilkinson 2001). At the same time, there has been a flurry of scholarly
publications, with more on the way (Petersilia 2003, Maruna & Immarigeon 2003,
Travis & Waul 2003).

As early as 1970, John Irwin, author of The Felon, challenged scholars to tackle
the complexities of the reentry phenomenon. Noting the irony that researchers and
journalists had extensively examined the reentry challenges facing World War II
veterans and Peace Corps returnees, he reached this conclusion:
[T]here is little indication either from the literature or from interviews of

persons involved in dealing with parolees of the existence of any awareness
of the broader aspects of the reentry problem. This general blindness seems
to be related to formal and informal societal conceptions of the ex-convict.
(Irwin 1970, p. 109)
When Irwin wrote these words, the prison population was 200,000. Today’s
intense interest in prisoner reentry is focused on an annual reentry cohort more
than three times larger.
This review examines four dimensions of the transition from prison to com-
munity: (a) individual characteristics, (b) family relationships, (c) community
contexts, and (d) state policies. These dimensions are not static. They are both em-
bedded in the life experience of the prisoner as he or she enters prison, completes
the prison term, and is released, and they change over time. For these reasons, this
review reflects a dynamic framework (see Figure 2) that captures the changing na-
ture of these interactions. As this review shows, prisoner reentry and reintegration
experiences vary considerably based on individual characteristics, family and peer
relationships, community contexts, and state policies.
Individuals returning home from prison have been shaped by their offending
and substance-abuse histories, their work skills and job histories, their mental
and physical health, their prison experiences, and their attitudes, beliefs, and per-
sonality traits. Peer networks in prison and relationships with substance abus-
ing and criminal peers in the community may promote postrelease offending,
whereas supportive peers who do not engage in crime and drug abuse may pre-
vent reoffending. Families may provide strong support systems for returning
prisoners, they may facilitate or enable continued offending or substance-abuse
behaviors, or they may be victims of the returning prisoners and want nothing to
do with them upon release. Community willingness to address the challenges of
92 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS
Figure 2 Conceptualizing individual transitions from prison to community.
prisoner reentry and available resources—or the lack thereof—constitute one set
of environmental influences on prisoners returning home. In addition, state proce-
dures for release and reentry differ in terms of the nature and extent of prerelease
preparation, supervision conditions (if any), transition assistance, and availabil-
ity of community-based aftercare, all of which may affect individual postrelease
experiences.
INDIVIDUAL INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSITION

FROM PRISON TO THE COMMUNITY
The transition experienced by individuals as they leave prison and return home
to their families and communities is fundamentally a dynamic, social process.
However, only recently has theoretical and empirical attention been directed to
the conceptualization of this experience, which includes the period immediately
after release and the months and years that follow (Bushway et al. 2001, Laub
& Sampson 2001, Travis et al. 2001). Only a handful of studies have examined
the lives of individuals released from prison. However, these studies are based on
small or unrepresentative samples (Adler 1992, Maruna 2001, Nelson et al. 1999,
Shover 1985, Solomon et al. 2001, Zamble & Quinsey 1997) or were conducted
decades ago (Glaser 1964, Glueck & Glueck 1950 reanalyzed in Sampson & Laub
1993, Irwin 1970, Studt 1967). As a result, they may not be generalizable to the
issues facing prisoners being released today.
Research on criminal careers provides insight into the transition from prison
to community and the individual-level factors that influence this transition. This
research framework was formally described in a 1986 report issued by the National
Research Council entitled Criminal Careers and Career Criminals (Blumstein
et al. 1986). The report focused heavily on the processes involved in the onset and
persistence of criminal careers, and explicitly mentioned the lack of research on the
end of the career, or criminal desistance. Most research on prisoners or former pris-
oners examines recidivism or the failure to desist from crime. Recidivism is usually
identified through rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration (Blumstein et al. 1986,
Langan & Levin 2002, Tracy & Kempf-Leonard 1996, Wolfgang et al. 1987).
Recidivism studies focus typically on identifying the factors that predict the reoc-
currence of criminal activity. Unlike the criminal careers approach, this research
generally does not examine the process by which an individual continues to be
involved in crime or desists from crime, nor does it focus on an ex-prisoner’s rein-
tegration into society; instead it focuses on one narrow outcome (e.g., arrest or not).
Recently, scholars have recognized that the study of desistance from crime
would benefit from a broader focus as a longitudinal process, rather than as a dis-
crete outcome (Adler 1992, Bushway et al. 2001, Laub & Sampson 2001, Maruna
2001, Sampson & Laub 1993, Shover 1996). Laub & Sampson (2001) present an
overview of research pertaining to desistance, especially research that has viewed
this event in a longitudinal framework focused on individual change. Among the
many contributions in their essay is a discussion of the similarities involved in de-
sisting from other problem behaviors, such as illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, and
domestic violence (see also Fagan 1989, Vaillant 1988, Waldorf 1983). Among
the conclusions in this body of research are that desistance from problem behavior
is the outcome of a process involving an individual decision or motivating event
(often prompted by an accumulation of negative consequences), lifestyle changes
including new social networks and new social roles (marriage, having a child,
legitimate work), and social support for this identity and lifestyle transformation
(Laub & Sampson 2001). In addition, many studies of desistance from problem
behavior acknowledge that, although the biological and psychological processes
associated with getting older may be involved in the desistance process, aging is
neither a necessary nor a sufficient explanation.
Laub & Sampson (2001) analyzed the utility of six conceptual frameworks that
may be helpful in understanding and explaining criminal desistance. They ulti-
mately concluded that conceptualizing individual desistance from crime would
benefit from a life-course framework that emphasizes the importance of salient
life events and their interaction with conventional social bonds and informal social
control. According to Laub & Sampson, the desistance process may be best under-
stood using a theoretical framework that combines individual and social elements.
Here, our focus is broader than the individual process of criminal desistance.
We seek to conceptualize individual transitions from prison to community along
a range of social dimensions, recognizing that these transitions may or may not
lead to desistance. Indeed, identifying the special circumstances facing returning
prisoners may lead to a broader understanding of why some former prisoners
commit new crimes and others do not (Travis et al. 2001).
94 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS
We view these transitions as involving four stages of every prisoner’s life ex-
periences: (a) life prior to prison, (b) life in prison, (c) the moment of release and
immediately after prison release, and (d) life during the months and years following
prison release. Some recent research on criminal desistance is directly relevant to
this broader conceptual framework, but most existing studies fail to take into con-
sideration the incarceration experience and its immediate aftermath. The omission
is important because anecdotal reports of returning prisoners’ experiences chron-
icled in newspaper and magazine accounts (Ripley 2002, Feuer 2002, Reaves &
Hart 2002), supplemented by qualitative accounts in books and articles written by
former prisoners themselves (e.g., Irwin 1970, Ross & Richards 2002), suggest
that these two stages in the course of a prisoner’s life and eventual transition to the
community are critical to explaining postprison outcomes and reintegration.

The perspective provided in Figure 2 remedies many of the problems in past

research, which has tended to focus on restricted aspects of postprison life. It
suggests that an individual’s long-term postprison reintegration is likely to depend
on a variety of personal and situational characteristics that are best understood in
a longitudinal, life-course framework:
■ preprison circumstances (e.g., demographic profile, work history and job
skills, criminal history, substance abuse involvement, family characteristics),
■ in-prison experiences (e.g., length of stay, participation in treatment pro-
grams, contact with family and friends, prerelease preparation),
■ immediate postprison experiences (e.g., moment of release, initial housing
needs, transition assistance, family support), and
■ postrelease integration experiences (e.g., employment experiences, influence
of peers, family connections, social service support, criminal justice super-
vision).
It is not known which of these four stages has the largest impact on long-term
postprison reintegration (Zamble & Quinsey 1997). As mentioned earlier, most
existing research has focused exclusively on recidivism. These studies, which
are briefly reviewed in Individual Characteristics and Preprison Circumstances,
are not ideal for our purposes of examining the transition from prison to the
community. However, they provide an important foundation for understanding
postrelease patterns of behavior.
INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PREPRISON

CIRCUMSTANCES
In the largest study of its kind, the Bureau of Justice Statistics examined criminal
recidivism among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994 (Langan &
Levin 2002). Overall, 67.5% of the prisoners were arrested for a new offense within
3 years and 51.8% were back in prison, serving time either for a new offense or for a
technical violation of their release. Men were more likely to be returned to prison
(53%) than women (39.4%), blacks (54.2%) more likely than whites (49.9%),
non-Hispanics (57.3%) more likely than Hispanics (51.9%), younger prisoners
more likely than older ones, and prisoners with longer prior histories of criminal
behavior were more likely to be returned to prison than those with shorter records.
A range of individual circumstances prior to prison also predict recidivism.
More importantly for our purposes, these circumstances may also affect transi-
tions from prison to community. In particular, substance abuse history, job skills
and work history, mental and physical health, and intensity of conventional ties
and behavior predict recidivism and are also likely to be important influences on
postprison reintegration. For example, in a 1997 survey of inmates, 52% of prison-
ers reported that they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they
committed the offense that sent them to prison (Mumola 1999). Many studies have
linked substance abuse problems to reoffending (e.g., Chaiken & Chaiken 1990,
Harrison 2001, White & Gorman 2000). Studies of released prisoners report that
their success or failure to confront their substance abuse problem often emerges
as a primary factor in their postprison adjustment (Califano 1998, Hanlon et al.
2000, Nelson et al. 1999, Sampson & Laub 1993, Zamble & Quinsey 1997).
Although slightly more than half of inmates report being employed full-time
prior to incarceration (Ditton 1999), the poor employment histories and job skills of
returning prisoners create diminished prospects for stable employment and decent
wages upon release. However, former prisoners who are able to rejoin the labor
market, through previous employers or contacts from family or friends, are more
likely to have successful outcomes after release (Nelson et al. 1999, Sampson &
Laub 1993). The reverse is also true: Former prisoners who were deeply embedded
in a criminal lifestyle for many years prior to incarceration may be at highest risk of
poor outcomes after release (Adler 1992, Hagan 1993, Nelson et al. 1999, Western
et al. 2001; for exceptions see Shover & Thompson 1992, Waldorf 1983). This
research shows that it is important to examine an individual’s preprison stakes in
conformity and ties to conventional activities, through legitimate work and other
behavior, to fully understand individual transitions from prison to the community
and eventual reintegration. Returning prisoners who can draw on preprison con-
ventional roles and relationships, as opposed to those who burned all bridges prior
to incarceration, may have more successful postprison outcomes.
Experiences in Prison
Some studies of former prisoners have measured and examined the impact of
experiences in prison on postrelease outcomes, typically including the length of the
prison stay, the prisoner’s involvement in correctional programs of various types,
and the psychological consequences of the prison experience. Not surprisingly,
long periods of confinement reduce an individual’s ties to family and friends (Lynch
& Sabol 2001b) and diminish job skills and decrease postrelease employment
prospects (Hagan & Dinovitzer 1999, Western et al. 2001). Recent reviews of the
impact of correctional programming on postrelease outcomes generally conclude
that a variety of programs, including those focused on individual improvement
96 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS
in education, job skills, cognitive skills, and substance abuse (Cullen 2002, Gaes
et al. 1999, Inciardi et al. 1997, Steurer et al. 2001, Wilson & Gallagher 2000),
reduce recidivism. However, a meta-analysis of 50 studies analyzing the effect of
prison sentences on recidivism found that longer prison sentences were associated
with higher recidivism for both high- and low-risk offenders (Gendreau & Goggin
1994). Other research indicates that lengthy exposure to the harsh, impersonal
conditions of prison life and the institutionalization that results from living in such
an environment may have short- and/or long-term effects on an individual’s ability
to readjust to life outside of prison (Adams 1992, Bonta & Gendreau 1990, Haney
2003, Irwin 1970, Ross & Richards 2002). Undoubtably, ex-prisoners are changed
in some way by their time in prison. However, existing research has not attempted
to estimate how these experiences might affect the process of reintegration or

the relative impact of experiences in prison on postrelease outcomes, taking into

account preprison experiences and postrelease circumstances.
Immediate Postrelease Experience

To understand the individual pathways of reintegration after prison release, one
must also focus on the complex dynamic of the moment of release (Travis et al.
2001). The complexities of reestablishing life after prison in the days and weeks
after release are many and include the following: finding a place to live; securing
formal identification; reestablishing ties with family; returning to high-risk places
and situations; and the daunting challenge of finding a job, often with a poor work
history and now, a criminal record. Most prison systems do little to facilitate a
smooth transition from prison to community. In Illinois, released prisoners receive
$50, a set of clothes, and a bus ticket (The Economist 2002). One third of all state
departments of corrections report that they do not provide any funds upon release
(Travis et al. 2001).
Many prisoners report considerable anxiety about their release, although, at the
same time, they may have high expectations about how their lives will be different
“this time” (Irwin 1970, Nelson et al. 1999, Studt 1967, Uggen et al. 2003). Yet
little is known about whether prisoners’ attitudes about the future or their readi-
ness to change have any predictive value in explaining postrelease outcomes and
reintegration. Recognizing the many challenges faced in the immediate postre-
lease period and understanding how ex-prisoners succeed or fail in meeting them
may help explain the long-term course of an individual’s transition from prison to
community (see e.g., Ripley 2002, Nelson et al. 1999, Zamble & Quinsey 1997).
Answering such a question requires repeated information on returning prisoners’
experiences from release to several months or a year (or more) after release. Such
a study has not as yet been conducted.
Postrelease Circumstances
Our understanding of individual pathways in the transition from prison to com-
munity in the months and years after release from prison is drawn largely from a
few studies of returning prisoners’ experiences after release (see Laub & Sampson
2001, Irwin 1970, Nelson et al. 1999, Studt 1967). This literature and more recent
work (Laub & Sampson 2003, Maruna 2001, Uggen et al. 2003, Zamble & Quinsey
1997) discuss the importance of understanding these pathways as a function of
individual actions, choices, and personal identity and of an individual’s social en-
vironment. These forces can interact. For example, for most returning prisoners,
a successful postrelease transition to a conventional lifestyle requires stable em-
ployment (exceptions might include women with small children and the disabled),
yet convicted felons are likely to have difficulty finding legitimate opportunities
for work, either owing to weakened connections to employment opportunities, the
depletion of work skills during idle prison time, or the stigma of incarceration
(Sampson & Laub 1993, Uggen et al. 2003, Solomon et al. 2001, Western et al.
2001). Some simply cannot adjust to the routines involved in a commitment to

legitimate work (Adler 1992, Irwin 1970), or at least not until older ages (Uggen
2000). Indeed, few returning prisoners seem to find jobs on their own, but rather
turn to family, friends, and former employers for help (Irwin 1970, Solomon et al.
2001, Nelson et al. 1999).
Reestablishing a commitment to family roles (e.g., as husband/wife, parent, or
son/daughter) after release from prison can be critical to developing a prosocial
identity (Sampson & Laub 1993, Uggen et al. 2003). In a 1997 survey, 55% of
state prisoners reported that they were parents; however, only 16% of prisoners
reported being married and 59% had never been married (Mumola 2000, Lynch &
Sabol 2001b). Moreover, nationally only 47% of black males are married (com-
pared to 64% of white males), and marriage rates among black men have been
declining for the past several decades. Thus, for a substantial group of released
men, reintegration to a family role of husband or parent that involves day-to-day
responsibilities is not a social role that they will step into immediately upon release.
But the importance of this role for identity transformation toward law-abiding cit-
izen after release is highly significant (Uggen et al. 2003). For example, Zamble &
Quinsey’s (1997) study of the social-psychological processes affecting recidivism
and desistance identified interpersonal conflict with heterosexual partners as a
common problem mentioned by recidivists, second only to problems involving
substance abuse.
In addition to work and family, a third area of identity transformation for return-
ing prisoners is that of responsible citizen, including varieties of civic participa-
tion such as voting, volunteer work, “giving back,” and neighborhood involvement
(Travis et al. 2001, Uggen et al. 2003). Many returning prisoners voice the im-
portance of such a role for themselves as they reintegrate into their communities
(Maruna 2001, Solomon et al. 2001, Uggen et al. 2003). However, depending
on state and federal laws, those with a felony conviction also face barriers to
full participation in their community, including their right to vote, serve on ju-
ries, and hold elective office, as well as limited work opportunities and housing
choices (Samuels et al. 2002, Travis et al. 2001, Uggen et al. 2003). Uggen and his
colleagues (2003) argue that civic reintegration should be included in models of
98 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS
transitions from prison to community because this role can help solidify identity
transformations from deviant to law-abiding citizen.
Finally, the influence of peers in the period after release may be either positive
or negative or both, and the impact of peers may depend on other circumstances
facing the newly released individual, such as the existence of other social supports,
exposure to criminogenic situations, and self-efficacy (Hagan 1993). Prison may
facilitate the development of social networks, including gangs, that may continue
after release (Moore et al. 1978), and these connections may encourage returning
prisoners to resume illegal activities (Moore 1996). Positive peer relationships,
and probably new relationships, in the period after release are undoubtedly an
important component of the identity transformation that must occur for former
prisoners to avoid returning to the lifestyle that resulted in their incarceration

(Adler 1992, Laub & Sampson 2001, Maruna 2001). However, these changes in
social identity can also lead to frustration and loneliness (Solomon et al. 2001,
Zamble & Quinsey 1997). Finally, the presumed importance of former prisoners
as mentors to newly released prisoners, similar to the use of recovering substance
abusers to support those in drug treatment, is as yet unstudied (S.C. Richards,
unpublished observations). The relative impact of peer influences for returning
prisoners in the context of other current and prior experiences and circumstances
remains poorly understood.
In summary, understanding individual-level influences on transitions from pri-
son to community is a complex conceptual and empirical task. In-depth interviews
with former prisoners indicate that at the heart of a successful transition is a personal
decision to change. This decision sets in motion an identity transformation and a
script for explaining one’s current identity and previous behavior (Maruna 2001,
see also Uggen et al. 2003). However, the individual’s social environment during
this transition is as important as his or her readiness to change (Nelson et al.
1999). These social factors include acceptance or rejection by family, friends,
and neighbors; the ease or difficulty encountered in establishing a conventional
lifestyle, including housing, work, and transportation; and an individual’s ability
to manage other potential obstacles, such as unresolved substance abuse, physical
and mental health problems, and financial obligations. Moreover, an individual’s
successful transition into roles such as husband/wife, parent, respected employee,
and law-abiding citizen may be impeded even for those committed to change.
For example, a public stigma is often attached to the ex-convict status through
employment or housing restrictions, and the accumulated life circumstances of
former prisoners (e.g., lack of education, work skills, impact of prison experience)
may affect the reintegration process.
FAMILY INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSITION

FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY
Family is important to understanding the reintegration of former prisoners, yet
we know little about its precise impacts. The topic has been virtually ignored in
studies of recidivism, although desistance research indicates that the family may
be critical to explaining individual pathways after release from prison. Among

the family influences that may be important are nature of family contact (e.g.,
frequency, antisocial, prosocial) and type of support offered, if any (i.e., emotional,
financial, housing).
In the study of crime, criminal behavior has long been tied to family attributes
(Gibbons 1992, Klein et al. 2002, McCord 1983, Wright & Wright 1994). Many
studies have examined the impact of an individual’s early family structure and
experiences on criminal activity. In recent decades, research has also focused on the
impact of returning prisoners on their families, specifically the effects on children
whose parents are incarcerated (Adalist-Estrin 1994, Fishman 1983, Hairston 1989,
Schneller 1976, Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza 2001, Swan 1981). More recently, in
response to the growing number of persons being released from federal and state
prisons, some research attention is being focused on the factors that lead to the
success or failure of former prisoners. However, there have been few attempts
to understand the impact of family influences on an individual’s transition from
prison to community or to systematically identify how family may affect different
stages of a prisoner’s life.
In the same way that most research on former prisoners addresses prediction of
recidivism, research that considers the family’s impact on returning prisoners al-
most exclusively addresses the single outcome of recidivism, rather than attempting
to understand the complicated social processes through which family may affect
reintegration. Furthermore, our understanding of the impact of the family on out-
comes for released prisoners is based primarily on studies that focus on the role
that family relationships and ties during prison play on later recidivism. Serious
gaps exist in the research on the relationship between family ties prior to prison
and the postprison transition, and surprisingly, few studies examine the impact of
family ties and the family dynamic after release on the process of reintegration for
returning prisoners.
Family Ties During Prison

Strong ties between prisoners and their families or close friends appear to have
a positive impact on postrelease success. The earliest efforts to understand the
relationship between family ties and postprison success came from Lloyd Ohlin’s
(1954) efforts to develop a parole success prediction scale for the state of Illinois
in the 1950s. Ohlin constructed an “index of family interest” and compared the
number of visits and number of visitors for a sample of releasees from Illinois state
prisons drawn from 1925–1935. Inmates who were classified as maintaining active
family interest were successful on parole, whereas those who were classified as
loners experienced significantly lower rates of parole success (Ohlin 1954 in Homer
1979). Two follow-up studies conducted by Glaser comparing similar populations
of releasees during the 1940s and the mid-1950s yielded similar results (Glaser
1964 in Homer 1979).
With an increased emphasis on rehabilitation in the 1970s, there was renewed
attention to the study of family impact on postprison outcomes. Most studies com-
pared postrelease success, narrowly defined as recidivism, for groups of releasees
100 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS
based on various forms of family contact during incarceration. Holt & Miller’s
(1972) postrelease follow-up study of 412 men who had been paroled for at least
one year compared reimprisonment rates among groups who differed in the num-
ber of different visitors during their final year of incarceration. Adams & Fischer
(1976) compared the mean number of letters and visits recidivists received ver-
sus those of nonrecidivists. Leclair (1978) compared recidivism rates for parole
releasees who participated in a furlough program to those who did not. Howser
et al. (1983) compared recidivism rates for releasees who participated in a program
specifically designed to strengthen family ties and prepare prisoners for returning to
their families with the expected recidivism rate. Each study found that stronger ties
between inmates and families and close friends during incarceration led to better
postrelease outcomes. Prisoners who experienced more family contact—whether

through visits or mail, or via participation in programs intended to facilitate family

contact—experienced lower recidivism rates and greater postrelease success. Holt
& Miller reported that “in every comparison category, including those with three
or more prior commitments [to prison], men with more family-social ties [had] the
fewest parole failures” (Holt & Miller 1972 in Homer 1979, p. 48).
More recent studies have provided further evidence that inmates’ family re-
lationships and ties to those family members during prison improve postrelease
outcomes (Bayse et al. 1991, Courturier 1995, Feinman 1986, Hairston 1988,
Hairston 1991, Hairston 1998, Jorgensen et al. 1986, Kiser 1991, Laub et al. 1998,
Sampson & Laub 1993). In response to these consistent findings, some jurisdic-
tions have begun to develop programs for the family members of prisoners while
the offender remains incarcerated. These programs include components such as
marital workshops, family education, and parenting skills and have been shown
to improve family relationships and ties as a means of preparing the prisoner for
release and reintegration into both the family and the community (Adalist-Estrin
1994, Jorgensen et al. 1986, Marsh 1983).
Family and Immediate Postrelease Experience

Several studies also identify the kinds of assistance that released prisoners re-
ceive from supportive families that appear to affect postrelease outcomes (Holt
& Miller 1972, Nelson et al. 1999). In 1999, researchers at the Vera Institute of
Justice tracked and interviewed 49 people who were released from New York state
prisons or New York City jails during the initial 30 days immediately follow-
ing release. Nelson and colleagues found that for these former prisoners, family
support played a critical role during the first 30 days. Specifically, the interviews
revealed two important areas of family support: emotional support and housing
assistance. Researchers found family acceptance and encouragement as well as
perceived emotional support from family were both related to postrelease success.
The recently released inmates who demonstrated the greatest success in employ-
ment and abstinence from drugs, and generally exhibited optimistic attitudes, were
“the ones that talked most about their family’s acceptance of them” (Nelson et al.
1999, p. 10). In addition, those who returned to live with family were less likely
to abscond from parole.
Family and Postrelease Circumstances

Given the consistent empirical evidence that maintaining and strengthening family
ties positively affects postprison outcomes, a logical next step was for practitioners
to develop programs and services for families of inmates, through which healthy
ties can be fostered. A few studies, primarily program evaluations, report that pro-
viding certain social services to families of recently released prisoners leads to
several positive outcomes, including decreased drug use; fewer physical, mental,
and emotional problems; and decreased recidivism (Couturier 1995, Shapiro &
Schwartz 2001, Sullivan et al. 2002). The most direct evidence of this finding
appears in an evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia, a resource center located in a
community rife with drug abuse in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. La Bodega pro-
vides crisis intervention and case-management services to drug abusers involved in
the criminal justice system and to their families. The hypothesis is that, by support-
ing the families of drug abusers, the program can reduce drug relapse and thereby
reduce incarceration. As predicted, the evaluation found decreased drug use and
fewer physical, mental, and emotional problems among the program participants.
Moreover, although reduced recidivism was not an explicit goal, the evaluation
found some evidence of impact on reoffending rates (Sullivan et al. 2002). How-
ever, Sullivan and colleagues expected that supporting families of users would
ease the relationships between drug users and their families, but the study found
that La Bodega clients (users and family) reported more conflict in their family
relationships. Drug users’ perceptions of social support from their family also de-
clined significantly relative to the comparison group. Offering support to families
of drug-using offenders may be a successful intervention for returning prisoners,
although it may adversely affect some family relationships.
Other research shows that returning prisoners who assume conventional roles
within their families have greater success in their transition from prison. Married
men have more successful transitions than single men (Clark & Crum 1985, Glaser
1964, Hairston 1987, Hairston 1988, Holt 1986). Men who reside with their wives
and children upon release have more successful transitions than those who live
alone or with a parent (Curtis & Schulman 1984), and recently released inmates
who describe their marriage as harmonious do better than those who describe their
marriage as one of conflict (Burstein 1977, Fishman 1986).
Gaps and Weaknesses

Several weaknesses exist in much of the research examining the impact of fam-
ilies on postprison reintegration. Most studies focus on the narrow outcome of
recidivism. Few studies attempt to understand the complicated social processes
underlying the relationship between the family and the former prisoner. For exam-
ple, a better understanding is needed of the nature of family ties and relationships
before incarceration, the strength of the effects of different family relationships

(parents versus children versus spouses), the effects of negative family influences
(i.e., family drug users), and how to assess the quality of family ties and family
contacts. Furthermore, although the postrelease experiences of men and women
vary greatly, most studies consist primarily, or exclusively, of male samples. Those
that do include female participants do not report separate findings for males and
females.
Nonetheless, existing research provides strong empirical evidence that the fam-
ily of a former prisoner has a significant impact on postrelease success or failure;
indeed, the family often suffers as a “buffering agent” for the newly released pris-
oner (Irwin 1970). Whereas much of this research confirms the correlation between
family ties and postrelease success, it fails to address the more difficult issues that
could lead to a full understanding of how and why this effect occurs.
COMMUNITY INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSITION

A third set of factors that may influence individual transitions from prison to com-
munity are the characteristics of the environment to which the former prisoner
returns. Research on the role and significance of the environment in understanding
the well-being and development of individuals was the focus of a workshop or-
ganized by the National Academy of Sciences for the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (Iannotta & Ross 2002). Workshop presentations included
studies of neighborhood-level indicators, such as socioeconomic status, racial di-
versity, and residential stability, and their effects on child development and health
outcomes of individuals. Overall, research estimating the impact of these neigh-
borhood factors on individual outcomes shows that these effects are moderate and
depend on individual characteristics (Iannotta & Ross 2002).
The study of crime and delinquency has a rich history of ecological research
that has focused on the ways in which characteristics of communities may in-
fluence rates of crime and violence (for a review, see Sampson 2002). Although
the majority of this research does not attempt to explain individual differences, a
small and growing body of work has examined neighborhood-level influences on
individual criminal activity (Simcha-Fagan & Schwartz 1986, Elliott et al. 1996)
and recidivism (Bhati 2001). These studies show that structural features of neigh-
borhoods, such as residential stability, rates of organizational participation, and
measures of informal and formal social control, have either direct or mediated
effects on individual criminal activity (see Sampson 2002).
Other research has shown that returning prisoners are increasingly concentrated
in our nation’s central cities and within them, in a relatively small number of neigh-
borhoods that often are characterized by severe poverty, social disorganization, and
high crime rates (Lynch & Sabol 2001b, Travis et al. 2001, Clear et al. 2003). As
previous research has suggested, it makes sense that a place of residence may
affect individual behavior, especially for persons returning to a community after a
period of absence. In the case of returning prisoners, a variety of neighborhood in-

dicators and resources may affect postrelease outcomes, including housing values
and availability, job availability or proximity to jobs, health care services, and sub-
stance abuse treatment (Haines 1990, Harm & Phillips 2001, Richie 2001, Travis
et al. 2001). Some evidence shows that availability of social services facilitates a
smoother reentry and diminishes repeat criminal activity (Freudenberg et al. 1998,
Kim et al. 1997).
In addition to the structural features of an area, the social organization of a
neighborhood, including the density of networks among residents, satisfaction
with one’s community, and the capacity of the community to join together around
common goals, is also theoretically linked to rates of crime and disorder (see
Sampson 2002). Sampson and his colleagues (1997) created a new measure of
these elements, calling their concept neighborhood “collective efficacy”—a sense

of mutual trust and shared willingness to intervene for the common good. They
showed that collective efficacy affected local crime rates independent of neighbor-
hood characteristics such as poverty, residential stability, and immigrant concentra-
tion. Conceivably, neighborhood social processes may affect individual transitions
from prison to community. Some preliminary conceptual and empirical work on
this question was initiated in the early 1980s. In a study of the impact of neigh-
borhood characteristics on recidivism among parolees released in 1978–1980,
neighborhood effects were insignificant, but the authors concluded that the results
may have been due to data-quality issues (Gottfredson & Taylor 1988). More re-
cently, these underlying social processes and mechanisms and their measurement
at the neighborhood level have been the focus of ongoing research (Clear et al.
2003, Lynch & Sabol 2001a, Rose & Clear 2003, Sampson 2002). For example,
formal and informal social controls involving local social networks are likely to
vary across neighborhoods, and these processes may deter or exacerbate individual
propensities to commit crime.
Social and structural features of neighborhoods may also affect a variety of
individual postrelease outcomes (other than criminal activity) that are critical to
a successful transition from prison, including finding and holding a job, avoiding
use of alcohol and illegal drugs, finding affordable housing, and receiving physical
and mental health care. Yet there has been no research on identifying, measuring,
and examining the effects of neighborhood factors on these outcomes.
Finally, because of the geographical concentration of crime in urban areas, some
neighborhoods may have been particularly affected in recent years by two types of
population changes: first, the removal of large numbers of men from these neigh-
borhoods because of incarceration, and second, the return of these men as they are
released from prison. Some researchers have suggested that the high rates of incar-
ceration concentrated in some neighborhoods may, after a certain point, actually
increase crime because the removal of men from these areas destabilizes social
networks that promote informal social control among neighbors (Clear et al. 2003;
Rose & Clear 1998; Lynch & Sabol 2000, 2001a). In addition, other criminals may
move in to replace the incarcerated residents. Residents in these areas may also
suffer financial hardship, further weakening the vitality of the neighborhood. For-
mer prisoners returning to these neighborhoods may also increase neighborhood
crime because the social network of the community and its ability to maintain
order is already weakened. Former prisoners may have weak ties to residents,
be excluded from neighborhood life, and experience some level of discrimina-
tion or stigma because of their ex-convict status. Tests of these hypotheses at the
neighborhood level have been hampered by the paucity of longitudinal data to
measure incarceration and prison release rates at the neighborhood level as well
as the underlying social processes (Clear et al. 2003, Lynch & Sabol 2001a).
Expanding these ideas to explore whether they may help explain individual transi-
tions from prison to community is a formidable challenge that awaits the research
community.
STATE POLICIES AND INDIVIDUAL TRANSITIONS

State policy represents a fourth dimension influencing individual transitions from
prison to community. The three dimensions discussed above—individual, family
and peer relationships, and community contexts—all operate within an environ-
ment that is defined to a large extent by a network of interrelated governmental
policies. Most of the policies that matter in this discussion are adopted by state
governments. With the exception of sentences for violations of the federal criminal
law or short-term sentences served in local detention facilities, prison sentences
are served in state facilities. In 2001, of the 2.1 million individuals incarcerated,
59% were held in state prisons (the remainder were in local jails or federal prisons).
The relevant state policies can be viewed in three segments—policies determining
(a) who goes to prison, (b) what happens to prisoners while they are in prison, and
(c) the levels of support and supervision for ex-prisoners following their release
from prison.
In the most literal sense, people are sent to prison because the state has decided
that their crimes should result in their imprisonment, so the most important devel-
opment in state policy that has influenced the transitions from prison to community
is the increased use of prison as a response to crime. More people being sent to
prison means more people experience the process of reentry. Further, state policy
determines the length of a prison sentence. Because of various sentencing reforms,
the average sentence length has increased significantly, from 22 months for prison-
ers released in 1990 to 28 months for those released in 1998. These longer prison
stays attenuate relationships with family members and decrease earning potential,
two factors associated with successful reintegration (Lynch & Sabol 2001b, Hagan
& Dinovitzer 1999).
The growth in imprisonment has been well-documented (Irwin & Austin 1997,
Blumstein & Beck 1999, Mauer 1999). Less attention has been paid to the influence
of state policy on prisoners’ preparation for release and the pathways of reintegra-
tion following release. During the 1990s, a decade when the state prison population
increased by over 70%, programming in prisons did not keep pace. Comparing
1991 to 1997, the level of participation (among those prisoners to be released in the
next 12 months) in educational programs dropped from 43% to 35%, in vocational
programs from 31% to 27%, and in drug-treatment programs from 25% to 10%
(Lynch & Sabol 2001b). These decreases are steeper than they appear, precisely
because of the prison growth. The result of these two forces is that significantly
larger numbers of prisoners are being released without educational, vocational,
or treatment preparations that are designed to facilitate successful reintegration
(Travis et al. 2001).
The evaluation literature on such programs has recently moved toward a new
consensus that stands in stark contrast to the famed 1974 Martinson review of
rehabilitation programs that declared “nothing works.” Several reviews and meta-
analyses have reached similar bottom-line conclusions: Prison-based programs,

particularly when combined with postrelease services, can indeed reduce recidi-
vism (Cullen & Gendreau 2000, Gaes et al. 1999, Wilson & Gallagher 2000).
However, these evaluations can be critiqued on methodological grounds because
they often do not successfully address selection bias (Bushway & Reuter 2002,
Gaes et al. 1999). Moreover, for understanding transitions from prison to com-
munity, these studies place too much emphasis on recidivism as a measure of
effectiveness, at the expense of measures of adjustment or reintegration.
Finally, state policies have significant ramifications for the period immediately
following prison. The first step in the release process is the release decision itself.
Who decides when someone gets out of prison? Over the past generation, there has
been a profound shift in the allocation of responsibility for that decision. Under the
classic indeterminate sentencing model, which dominated American jurisprudence
for most of the century, parole boards, agencies of the executive branch, made that
decision (Tonry 1996). Following a generation of sentencing reforms beginning
in the 1970s, parole boards no longer play a dominant role in releasing prisoners.
In 1976, 65% of released prisoners were released by parole boards. By 1999, that
had dropped to 24%. Viewed differently, most prison release dates are now set by
the legislative branch, which has set fixed prison terms under different determinate
sentencing schemes (Petersilia 2003, Travis & Lawrence 2002).
The impact of this development has not been documented. For prisoner rein-
tegration, this shift conceivably has far-reaching consequences. To be eligible for
parole, a prisoner typically must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she
has a job, a place to live, and a social support system. The sharp cutback in parole-
board decisions may have lifted some of the pressure on prisoners to make these
connections as ingredients of a successful release application.
State policy has also shifted dramatically as to whether the released prisoner
is placed under state supervision. Notwithstanding the sharp reduction in parole-
board releases, more prisoners are now released “conditionally,” meaning they
must abide by conditions of release and may be sent back to prison for failing to
do so. Between 1960 and 1990, the share of prison releases that were conditional
rose from 56% to a high of 84%, before declining somewhat to 77% in 1999
(Travis & Lawrence 2002). Put differently, in 2002, approximately 450,000 in-
dividuals were released to some form of supervision, and the remaining 150,000
were released with no legal status, no parole officer, and no government official
responsible for their reintegration. Unfortunately, little research exists on the ef-
fectiveness of postprison supervision (Petersilia 1999). More attention has been
paid to the effectiveness of probation supervision (e.g., MacKenzie et al. 1999,
Petersilia & Turner 1993), which is informative but cannot help to explain the
trajectory of reintegration into society after imprisonment.
Finally, state policy plays a significant, sometimes dominant, role in transitions
from prison by determining that the former prisoner may be returned to prison
for violating parole. This aspect of state policy has also witnessed a far-reaching
shift, as illustrated by counting who comes into state prison (Blumstein & Beck
1999). In 1980, 17% of the prisoners admitted to state prisons (27,177 individuals)
were parole violators. In 1999, those same state prisons admitted 197,606 parole
violators, a sevenfold increase, constituting 35% of all prison admissions (Hughes
et al. 2001).
Seen from the vantage point of this review, these state policies have signifi-
cant consequences for the reintegration experiences of hundreds of thousands of
people each year. More people have been to prison than ever before in American
history, about 13 million according to one estimate—1 in 8 American males and
1 in 5 African Americans (Uggen et al. 2003). They are less prepared for the jour-
ney home, subjected to more stringent supervision, and sent back to prison more
often. Moreover, noncorrectional state (and local) policies also affect individual
transitions from prison to community. Former prisoners face housing regulations
that can deny felons access to public housing, eligibility rules for substance abuse
treatment, and difficulty accessing medical care and obtaining needed medication.
These blunt impacts of public policy tend to overwhelm the more fragile influ-
ences of individual determination, family influences, and peer groups. However,
measuring the impact of these policies on individual transitions from prison to
community represents another research challenge.
CONCLUSION
For more than 200 years, prisons have occupied a prominent place in the criminal
justice system. Over the past 30 years, America has significantly expanded the uses
of prisons, with the result that the incarceration experience now penetrates deeply
into the fabric of American life. Yet remarkably little is known about the impact
of imprisonment on the individuals who are sent there or the concentric circles of
family, peer groups, neighborhoods, and the larger society that are affected by our
imprisonment policies.
This chapter has highlighted the need for a research agenda that focuses on the
temporal dimensions of the experience of imprisonment. We have used a reentry
perspective as a framework for assessing the state of knowledge and have found a
number of critical shortcomings. The literature contains a number of studies that
focus on reentry failures. They examine the pathways of transition from prison
to community to understand the correlates of recidivism. Other studies focus on
reentry successes. They construct useful models of the processes of desistance from
crime. Rarely does a study look systematically at both. A more comprehensive
approach would examine both sides of the reentry coin.
We have also critiqued the research literature for focusing too much on re-
cidivism as the critical outcome measure, at the expense of a more complex un-
derstanding of the milestones in the reintegration process. Securing employment,
resolving conflicts with family members, maintaining sobriety, joining a commu-
nity organization, mentoring a young person in the neighborhood, and becoming
politically active are all indicators of successful attachment to the institutions of
civil society and are critical issues that should be incorporated into a more robust
research agenda.
The reentry perspective also suggests a research agenda that incorporates an
understanding of the impact of the preprison and in-prison factors on the trajecto-
ries of individual prisoners. A sentence to prison does not erase personal history.
Prisoners carry with them their life experiences, needs, skills, and relationships.
Research should certainly incorporate these factors in any analysis of postprison
reentry experiences.
But the prison experience is a unique rite of passage. For some, going to prison is
an abrupt and beneficial departure from a prior life of antisocial behavior. We have
many journalistic accounts of men and women who credit prison as an opportunity
to turn their lives around. For others, time in prison accelerates their attachment to
the relationships, attitudes, and mindsets that define the criminal lifestyle. Gang
relationships develop or intensify, or a criminal identity is embraced. For still
others, prison is dehumanizing, leaving the former prisoner bitter and diminished.
Just as some never recover from war or trauma, some never recover from prison.
Much of the research on prisons focuses on the programs offered in prisons,
not prison itself as a social institution and a transforming experience. The person
who emerges from prison is more than the product of a series of intermittent inter-
ventions. That person has been shaped by prison life—with its own unique social
relationships, conflicts, norms, and community life. A comprehensive research
agenda would link the understanding of prison life with the life course of those
who leave prison.
Little research exists on the period following imprisonment. The workings of
the parole system have been largely unexamined, even though more people are
now sent back to prison through parole violations than went to prison a generation
ago. Yet the reentry experience is about more than state supervision. Moving from
prison, an institution of total control, to the often chaotic environment of modern
life is a powerful transition poorly understood by the research community, yet
vividly portrayed in the writings of former prisoners. Society has placed many
legal barriers and other obstacles on the road to reintegration. The prisoner’s past
life adds more. The prison experience imposes its own set of challenges and op-
portunities. Additionally, the world has not stood still. During his or her time in
prison, the prisoner’s children have grown, intimate partners may (or may not) have
moved on, former employers may (or may not) have a job waiting, and criminal
associates may (or may not) be ready to reconnect. A complete research agenda
would track the relationships between the changing outside social context and the
experiences of the returning prisoner.
Finally, as the criminal career literature teaches, most criminals age out of their
criminal behavior. How do they establish a new relationship with society as their
prison time recedes into the past? Do they forever occupy a diminished status? This
line of inquiry raises profound questions about the relationship between society
and its felons. Put in modern context, with a prison system that releases hundreds
of thousands of people a year, has the high rate of imprisonment exacerbated the
tendencies to marginalize and exclude former prisoners? Have our criminal justice
policies created a larger class of convicts cut off from many of the rights and
benefits of society, or has our experience with mass incarceration made the prison
experience so common, among poor minority males in particular, that we must
come to terms with a new reality of prison as a likely life event for that sector of
our society? If that is true, which seems likely, how do our imprisonment policies
reflect larger social forces of racial exclusion and state control?
We believe that the research community has a large role to play in unpacking
these tough questions. We are fortunate to be leading an effort at the Urban Institute
to launch a multistate longitudinal study that will, over the next several years, shed
light on many of the unexamined questions identified in this chapter. Our project,
Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, will provide
systematic information about the process of reintegration among a large sample
of former prisoners across neighborhoods, communities, and states. But the task
is far greater than a single study. The social challenge posed by the new realities
of imprisonment and reentry is sufficiently compelling to warrant an urgent call
for a substantial and sustained research investment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Rebecca Naser for her assistance with the research
on family influences, Daniel Mears for his thoughtful comments, and Grant Young
and David Williams for their help with references and formatting.
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Adalist-Estrin A. 1994. Family support and Adams D, Fischer J. 1976. The effects of
criminal justice. In Putting Families First: prison residents’ community contacts on re-
America’s Family Support Movement and cidivism rates. Correct. Soc. Psychiatry J.
the Challenge of Change, ed. SL Kagan, Behav. Technol. Methods Ther. 22:21–27
B Weissbourd, pp. 161–85. San Francisco: Adams K. 1992. Adjusting to prison life. In
Jossey-Bass Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
Vol. 16, ed. M Tonry, pp. 275–359. Chicago: North Carolina. NC: Inst Gov., Univ. North
Univ. Chicago Press Carolina
Adler PA. 1992. The ‘post’ phase of deviant ca- Clear TR, Rose DR, Waring E, Scully K. 2003.
reers: reintegrating drug traffickers. Deviant Coercive mobility and crime: incarceration
Behav. 13:103–26 and social disorganization. Justice Q. In press
Bhati AS. 2001. Environmental heterogene- Correct. Manag. Q. 2001. Summer: Special
ity in models predicting criminal recidi- Issue
vism: isolating the contribution of individual Couturier Lance C. 1995. Inmates benefit from
level characteristics. PhD thesis. Am. Univ., family services programs. Correct. Today
Washington, DC 57:100–7
Bayse DJ, Allgood SM, Van Wyk PH. 1991. Cullen FT. 2002. Rehabilitation and treatment
Family life education: An effective tool for programs. In Crime: Public Policies for
prisoner rehabilitation. Fam. Relat. 40:254– Crime Control, ed. JQ Wilson, J Petersilia,
57 pp. 253–90. Oakland, CA: Inst. Contemp.

Blumstein A, Beck AJ. 1999. Population Stud.
growth in US prisons, 1980–1996. In Pris- Cullen FT, Gendreau P. 2000. Assessing cor-
ons. Crime and Justice: A Review of Re- rectional rehabilitation: policy, practice and
search, Vol. 26, ed. M Tonry, J Petersilia, pp. prospects. In Criminal Justice 2000, ed. J
17–61. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Horney, 3:109–76. Washington, DC: Natl.
Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher CA, eds. Inst. Justice., US Dep. Justice
1986. Criminal Careers and “Career Crim- Curtis R, Schulman S. 1984. Ex-offenders’ fam-
inals.” Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press ily relations and economic supports: The sig-
Bonta J, Gendreau P. 1990. Reexamining the nificant women study of the TARP project.
cruel and unusual punishment of prison life. Crime Delinq. 30(4):507–28
Law Hum. Behav. 14:347–72 Ditton PM. 1999. Mental health and treatment
Burke P. 2001. Collaboration for successful of inmates and probationers. Bur. Justice Stat.
prisoner reentry: the role of parole and the Spec. Rep. US Dep. Justice, Washington, DC
courts. Correct. Manag. Q. 5(3):11–22 The Economist. 2002. Prison and beyond: a
Burstein J. 1977. Conjugal Visits in Prison. stigma that never fades. Aug. 10, pp. 25–
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books 27
Bushway S, Piquero A, Broidy L, Cauffman E, Elliott D, Wilson WJ, Huizinga D, Sampson
Mazerolle P. 2001. An empirical framework RJ, Elliott A, Rankin B. 1996. The effects
for studying desistance as a process. Crimi- of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent
nology 39:491–515 development. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 33:389–
Bushway S, Reuter P. 2002. Labor markets and 426
crime. In Crime: Public Policies for Crime Fagan J. 1989. Cessation of family violence: de-
Control, ed. JQ Wilson, J Petersilia, pp. 191– terrence and dissuasion. In Family Violence.
224. Oakland, CA: Inst. Contemp. Stud. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
Califano J. 1998. Behind bars: substance abuse ed. L Ohlin, M Tonry, 11:377–426. Chicago:
and America’s prison population. Natl. Cent. Univ. Chicago Press
Addict. Subst. Abus. Columbia Univ., New Feinman C. 1986. Women in the Criminal Jus-
York tice System. New York: Praeger Publishers
Chaiken JM, Chaiken MR. 1990. Drugs and Feuer A. 2002. Out of jail, into temptation. New
predatory crime. In Drugs and Crime. Crime York Times, Feb. 28
and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. Fishman LT. 1986. Repeating the cycle of hard
13, ed. M Tonry, JQ Wilson, pp. 203–40. living and crime: wives’ accommodations to
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press husband’s parole performance. Fed. Probat.
Clarke SH, Crum L. 1985. Returns to Prison in 50:44–54
Fishman SH. 1983. The impact of incarceration onment: Do they influence future criminal
on children of offenders. J. Child. Contemp. activity? Fed. Probat. 52(1):48–52
Soc. 15:89–99 Hairston CF. 1989. Family ties: Maintaining
Freudenberg N, Wilets I, Greene M, Richie B. child-parent bonds is important. Correct.
1998. Linking women in jail to community Today 51:102–6
services: factors associated with rearrest and Hairston CF. 1991. Family ties during impris-
retention of drug-using women following re- onment: important to whom and for what?
lease from jail. J. Am. Med. Women’s Assoc. J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 14:23–30
53:89–93 Hairston CF. 1998. The forgotten parent: un-
Gaes G, Flanagan T, Motiuk L, Stewart L. 1999. derstanding the forces that influence incar-
Adult correctional treatment. In Prisons, ed. cerated fathers’ relationships with their chil-
M Tonry, J Petersilia, pp. 361–426. Chicago: dren. Child Welf. 77(5):617–39
Univ. Chicago Press Haney C. 2003. The psychological impact of in-

Gendreau P, Goggin C. 1994. The Effect of carceration: implications for post-prison ad-
Prison Sentences on Recidivism. Ottawa, justment. In Prisoners Once Removed: The
Canada: Dep. Solicit. Gen. Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Chil-
Gibbons DC. 1992. Theories of crime. In Ency- dren, Families and Communities, ed. J Travis,
clopedia of Sociology, ed. EF Borgatta, ML M Waul. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. In
Borgatta, pp. 353–60. New York: Macmillan press
Glaser D. 1964. The Effectiveness of a Prison Hanlon TE, O’Grady KE, Bateman RW. 2000.
and Parole System. New York: Bobb-Merrill Using the addiction severity index to predict
Glueck S, Glueck E. 1950. Unraveling Ju- treatment outcomes among substance abuse
venile Delinquency. New York: Common- parolees. J. Offender Rehabil. 31(3/4):67–79
wealth Fund Harm N, Phillips S. 2001. You can’t go home
Gottfredson SD, Taylor RB. 1988. Community again: women and criminal recidivism. J. Of-
contexts and criminal offenders. In Commu- fender Rehabil. 32(3):3–21
nities and Crime Reduction, ed. T Hope, M Harrison L. 2001. The revolving prison door
Shaw, pp. 62–82. London: Her Majesty’s Sta- for drug-involved offenders: challenges and
tionery Off. opportunities. Crime Delinq. 47(3):462–85
Hagan J. 1993. The social embededness of Holt N. 1986. Statistical tables describing the
crime and unemployment. Criminology 31: background characteristics and recidivism
465–92 rates for releases from Massachusetts pre-
Hagan J, Dinovitzer R. 1999. Collateral conse- release facilities during 1983. Annu. Recidiv.
quences of imprisonment for children, com- Rep. Mass. Dep. Correct., Boston, MA
munities, and prisoners. In Prisons, ed. M Holt N, Miller D. 1972. Explorations in inmate-
Tonry, J Petersilia, pp. 121–62. Chicago: family relationships. Calif. Dep. Correct.,
Univ. Chicago Press Sacramento, Calif.
Haines K. 1990. After-Care Services for Re- Homer Eva L. 1979. Intimate-family ties: de-
leased Prisoners: A Review of the Litera- sirable but difficult. Fed. Probat. 43:47–52
ture. Cambridge, UK: Inst. Criminol. Univ. Howser J, Grossman J, Macdonald D. 1983. Im-
Cambridge pact of family reunion program on institu-
Hairston CF. 1991. Family ties during impris- tional discipline. J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 8:27–
onment: important to whom and for what? 36
J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 18(1):87–104 Hughes T, Wilson DJ, Beck A. 2001. Trends
Hairston CF. 1987. Parents in prison: new in state parole, 1990–2000. Bur. Justice Stat.
directions for social services. Soc. Work Spec. Rep., Dept. Justice, Sacramento, Calif.
32(2):162–64 Iannotta JG, Ross JL, eds. 2002. Equality of
Hairston CF. 1988. Family ties during impris- Opportunity and the Importance of Place:
Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: carceration policies on informal social con-

Natl. Acad. Press Natl. Res. Council trol in neighborhoods. Final Rep. Natl. Inst.
Inciardi J, Martin S, Butzin C, et al. 1997. Justice, US Dep. Justice, Washington, DC
An effective model of prison-based treatment Lynch JP, Sabol WJ. 2001b. Prisoner reentry in
for drug-involved offenders. J. Drug Issues perspective. Urban Inst. Crime Policy Rep.,
27(2):261–78 Urban Inst., Washington, DC
Irwin J. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: MacKenzie DL, Browning K, Skroban SB,
Prentice-Hall Smith DA. 1999. The impact of probation on
Irwin J, Austin J. 1997. It’s About Time: Amer- the criminal activities of offenders. J. Res.
ica’s Imprisonment Binge, p. 182. Belmont, Crime Delinq. 36:423–53
CA: Wadsworth. 2nd ed. Marsh RL. 1983. Service for families: a model
Jorgensen JD, Hernandez S, Warren RC. 1986. project to provide services for families of
Addressing the social needs of families of prisoners. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Crim-
prisoners: A tool for inmate rehabilitation. inol. 27(2):56–62

Fed. Probat. 50(4):47–52 Martinson R. 1974. What works?—questions
Kim J, Rich J, Zierler S, et al. 1997. Success- and answers about prison reform. Public In-
ful community follow-up and reduced recidi- terest 35:22–54
vism in HIV positive women prisoners. J. Maruna S. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-
Correct. Health Care 4(1):5–17 Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives.
Kiser G. 1991. Female inmates and their fami- Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
lies. Fed. Probat. 55:56–63 Maruna S, Immarigeon R. 2003. After Crime
Klein SR, Bartholomew GS, Hibbert J. 2002. and Punishment: Ex-offender Reintegration
Inmate family functioning. Int. J. Offender and Desistance from Crime. New York: State
Ther. Comp. Criminol. 46(1):95–111 Univ. NY Press. In press
Langan PA, Levin DJ. 2002. Recidivism of Mauer M. 1999. Race to Incarcerate. New
prisoners released in 1994. Bur. Justice Stat. York: New Press
Spec. Rep. US Dep. Justice, Washington, DC McCord J. 1983. Family relations. In Encyclo-
Laub JH, Nagin DS, Sampson RJ. 1998. Trajec- pedia of Crime and Justice, ed. SH Kadish,
tories of change in criminal offending: good pp. 759–64. New York: Free Press
marriages and the desistance process. Am. Moore J. 1996. Bearing the burden: how incar-
Sociol. Rev. 63:225–38 ceration weakens inner-city communities. In
Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 2001. Understanding de- The Unintended Consequences of Incarcera-
sistance from crime. In Crime and Justice: tion, pp. 67–90. New York: Vera Inst. Justice
An Annual Review of Research, pp. 1–69. Moore J, Garcia R, Garcia C, Cerda L, Valencia
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press F. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs and Pris-
Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 2003. Shared Begin- ons in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadel-
nings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to phia: Temple Univ. Press
Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press. Mumola CJ. 1999. Substance abuse and treat-
In press ment, state and federal prisoners, 1997. Bur.
Leclair DP. 1978. Home furlough program ef- Justice Stat. Spec. Rep., US Dep. Justice,
fects on rates of recidivism. Crim. Justice Be- Washington, DC
hav. 5(3):249–59 Mumola CJ. 2000. Incarcerated parents and
Lynch JP, Sabol WJ. 2000. Prison use and so- their children. Bur. Justice Stat. Spec. Rep.,
cial control. In Criminal Justice 2000, ed. J US Dep. Justice, Washington, DC
Horney, 3:7–44. Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Nelson M, Deess P, Allen C. 1999. The First
Justice, US Dep. Justice Month Out: Post-Incarceration Experiences
Lynch JP, Sabol WJ. 2001a. Crime, coercion, in New York City. Vera Inst. Justice, New
and community: the effects of arrest and in- York
Ohlin L. 1954. The stability and validity of Sampson RJ, Raudenbush S, Earls F. 1997.
parole experience tables. PhD thesis. Univ. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a mul-
Chicago tilevel study of collective efficacy. Science
Petersilia J. 1999. Parole and prisoner reentry 277:918–24
in the United States. In Prisons. Crime and Samuels P, Mukamal D, Stevens T. 2002.
Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 26, ed. State legal barriers affecting individuals
M Tonry, J Petersilia, pp. 479–529. Chicago: with criminal records. Presented at Reentry
Univ. Chicago Press Roundtable: Prison. Reentry Inst. Civ. Soc.,
Petersilia J. 2003. When Prisoners Return to Urban Inst., Justice Policy Cent., Washing-
Communities: Political, Economic and So- ton, DC
cial Consequences. Oxford Univ. Press Schneller DP. 1976. The Prisoner’s Family: A
Petersilia J, Travis J, eds. 2001. Special Is- Study of the Effects of Imprisonment on the
sue: From prison to society: managing the Families of Prisoners. San Francisco: R E
challenges of prisoner reentry. Crime Delinq. Res. Assoc.

47(3) Shapiro C, Schwartz M. 2001. Coming home:
Petersilia J, Turner S. 1993. Intensive probation building on family connections. Correct.
and parole. In Crime and Justice: A Review Manag. Q. 5(3):52–61
of Research, Vol. 17, pp. 281–336. Chicago: Sharp SF, Marcus-Mendoza ST. 2001. It’s a
Univ. Chicago Press family affair: incarcerated women and their
Reaves JA, Hart B. 2002. Ex-inmates struggle families. Women Crim. Justice. 12(4):21–49
to adjust to real world. The Arizona Republic, Shover N. 1985. Aging Criminals. Beverly
May 27 Hills, CA: Sage
Ripley A. 2002. Living on the outside. Time, Shover N. 1996. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and
Jan. 17 Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO:
Ritchie B. 2001. Challenges incarcerated Westview
women face as they return to their commu- Shover N, Thompson CY. 1992. Age, differ-
nities: findings from life history interview. ential expectations, and crime desistance.
Crime Delinq. 47(3):368–89 Criminology 30:89–104
Rose DR, Clear TR. 1998. Incarceration, so- Simcha-Fagan O, Schwartz J. 1986. Neighbor-
cial capital, and crime: implications for social hood and delinquency: an assessment of con-
disorganization theory. Criminology 36:441– textual effects. Criminology 24:667–704
79 Solomon A, Roman CG, Waul M. 2001. Sum-
Rose DR, Clear TR. 2003. Incarceration, reen- mary of focus group with ex-prisoners in the
try and social capital: social networks in the district: ingredients for successful reintegra-
balance. In Prisoners Once Removed: The tion. Urban Inst., Washington, DC
Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Chil- Steurer SJ, Smith L, Tracy A. 2001. The three-
dren, Families and Communities, ed. J Travis, state recidivism study for Maryland, Min-
M Waul. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. In nesota and Ohio. Draft Rep., Correct. Educ.
press Assoc., Lanham, Md
Ross JI, Richards SC. 2002. Convict Criminol- Studt E. 1967. The reentry of the offender into
ogy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth the community. In Studies in Delinquency.
Sampson RJ. 2002. The Community. In Crime: Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth
Public Policies for Crime Control, ed. JQ Development. US Dep. Health Educ. Welf.,
Wilson, J Petersilia, pp. 225–52. Oakland, Washington, DC
CA: ICS Press Sullivan E, Mino M, Nelson K, Pope J. 2002.
Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 1993. Crime in the Mak- Families as a resource in recovery from drug
ing: Pathways and Turning Points Through abuse: an evaluation of La Bodega de la Fa-
Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press milia. Vera Inst. Justice, New York
Swan LA. 1981. Families of Black Prisoners: up teach us about relapse and prevention of
Survival and Progress. Boston, MA: Hall relapse in addiction? Br. J. Addict. 83:1147–
Tonry M. 1996. Sentencing Matters: Studies in 57
Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford Waldorf D. 1983. Natural recovery from opiate
Univ. Press addiction: some social-psychological pro-
Tracy PE, Kempf-Leonard K. 1996. Continuity cesses of untreated recovery. J. Drug Issues
and Discontinuity in Criminal Careers. New 2:238–80
York: Plenum Western B, Kling JR, Weiman D. 2001. The
Travis J, Lawrence S. 2002. Beyond the Prison labor market consequences of incarceration.
Gates: The State of Parole in America. Wash- Crime Delinq. 47:410–27
ington, DC: Urban Inst. White HR, Gorman DM. 2000. Dynamics of the
Travis J, Solomon AL, Waul M. 2001. From drug-crime relationship. In Criminal Justice
prison to home: the dimensions and con- 2000. The Nature of Crime: Continuity and
sequences of prisoner reentry. Urban Inst., Change, ed. G LaFree, 1:151–218. Washing-
Washington, DC ton, DC: US Dep. Justice
Travis J, Waul M, eds. 2003. Prisoners Once Wilkinson RA. 2001. Offender reentry: a storm
Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and overdue. Correct. Manag. Q. 5(3):46–51
Reentry on Children, Families and Commu- Wilson D, Gallagher C. 2000. A meta-analysis
nities. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. In press of corrections-based education, vocational,
Uggen C. 2000. Work as a turning point in the and work programs for adult offenders. J.
life course of criminals: a duration model of Res. Crime Delinq. 37:347–68
age, employment, and recidivism. Am. So- Wolfgang M, Thornberry T, Figlio R. 1987.
ciol. Rev. 67:529–46 From Boy to Man: From Delinquency to
Uggen C, Manza J, Behrens A. 2003. Stigma, Crime. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
role transition, and the civic reintegration of Wright KN, Wright KE. 1994. Family life,
convicted felons. In After Crime and Punish- delinquency, and crime: a policymaker’s
ment: Ex-offender Reintegration and Desis- guide. Off. Juv. Justice Delinq. Prev., Wash-
tance from Crime, ed. S Maruna, R Immari- ington, DC
geon. New York: State Univ. NY Press. In Zamble E, Quinsey VL. 1997. The Criminal
press Recidivism Process. Cambridge, MA: Cam-
Vaillant GE. 1988. What can long-term follow- bridge Univ. Press
P1: FRK
June 11, 2003 19:56 Annual Reviews AR190-FM
Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 29, 2003
CONTENTS
Frontispiece—Raymond Boudon xii
PREFATORY CHAPTERS
Beyond Rational Choice Theory, Raymond Boudon 1

Teenage Childbearing as a Public Issue and Private Concern,
Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. 23
THEORY AND METHODS
The Science of Asking Questions, Nora Cate Schaeffer and
Stanley Presser 65
The Changing Picture of Max Weber’s Sociology, Richard Swedberg 283
SOCIAL PROCESSES
The Sociology of the Self, Peter L. Callero 115
INSTITUTIONS AND CULTURE
Relationships in Adolescence, Peggy C. Giordano 257
Still “Not Quite as Good as Having Your Own”? Toward a Sociology of
Adoption, Allen P. Fisher 335
The Economic Sociology of Conventions: Habit, Custom, Practice,
and Routine in Market Order, Nicole Woolsey Biggart and
Thomas D. Beamish 443
FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS
Covert Political Conflict in Organizations: Challenges from Below,
Calvin Morrill, Mayer N. Zald, and Hayagreeva Rao 391
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY
Skills Mismatch in the Labor Market, Michael J. Handel 135
Day Labor Work, Abel Valenzuela, Jr. 307
The Lopsided Continent: Inequality in Latin America, Kelly Hoffman and
Miguel Angel Centeno 363
Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities,
Archon Fung 515
v
P1: FRK
June 11, 2003 19:56 Annual Reviews AR190-FM
vi CONTENTS
DIFFERENTIATION AND STRATIFICATION

The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation,
Camille Zubrinsky Charles 167
Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and
Attainment, Grace Kao and Jennifer S. Thompson 417
The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor Market, Irene Browne
and Joya Misra 487
Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratification
Processes, George Farkas 541
INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY
The African American “Great Migration” and Beyond, Stewart E. Tolnay 209
The Potential Relevances of Biology to Social Inquiry, Jeremy Freese,
Jui-Chung Allen Li, and Lisa D. Wade 233
Racial Measurement in the American Census: Past Practices and
Implications for the Future, C. Matthew Snipp 563
DEMOGRAPHY
Population and African Society, Tukufu Zuberi, Amson Sibanda,
Ayaga Bawah, and Amadou Noumbissi 465
URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITY SOCIOLOGY
The Urban Street Gang After 1970, Brenda C. Coughlin and
Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh 41
Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual
Pathways, Christy A. Visher and Jeremy Travis 89
POLICY
Welfare-State Regress in Western Europe: Politics, Institutions,
Globalization, and Europeanization, Walter Korpi 589
INDEXES
Subject Index 611
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 20–29 635
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 20–29 638
ERRATA
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology
chapters (if any, 1997 to the present) may be found at
http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Transitions From Prison To Community

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transitions From Prison To Community

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Jun 2003 19:39 AR AR190-SO29-05.tex AR190-SO29-05.

sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GJB/GCE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:89–113

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY:

Christy A. Visher and Jeremy Travis

Key Words crime, prisoners, incarceration, recidivism, reentry

Over the past generation, America embarked on a large-scale social experiment

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 91

or the individual’s reconnection with the institutions of society, which is both a

Travis & Waul 2003).

[T]here is little indication either from the literature or from interviews of

Figure 2 Conceptualizing individual transitions from prison to community.

INDIVIDUAL INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSITION

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 93

community are critical to explaining postprison outcomes and reintegration.

The perspective provided in Figure 2 remedies many of the problems in past

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PREPRISON

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 95

to estimate how these experiences might affect the process of reintegration or

the relative impact of experiences in prison on postrelease outcomes, taking into

Immediate Postrelease Experience

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 97

2001). Some simply cannot adjust to the routines involved in a commitment to

prisoners to avoid returning to the lifestyle that resulted in their incarceration

FAMILY INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSITION

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 99

be critical to explaining individual pathways after release from prison. Among

Family Ties During Prison

100 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

postrelease outcomes. Prisoners who experienced more family contact—whether

through visits or mail, or via participation in programs intended to facilitate family

Family and Immediate Postrelease Experience

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 101

Family and Postrelease Circumstances

Gaps and Weaknesses

102 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

before incarceration, the strength of the effects of different family relationships

COMMUNITY INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSITION

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 103

period of absence. In the case of returning prisoners, a variety of neighborhood in-

these elements, calling their concept neighborhood “collective efficacy”—a sense

104 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

STATE POLICIES AND INDIVIDUAL TRANSITIONS

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 105

analyses have reached similar bottom-line conclusions: Prison-based programs,

106 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 107

108 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 109

57 pp. 253–90. Oakland, CA: Inst. Contemp.

110 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

Univ. Chicago Press Haney C. 2003. The psychological impact of in-

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 111

Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: carceration policies on informal social con-

prisoners: A tool for inmate rehabilitation. inol. 27(2):56–62

112 VISHER ¥ TRAVIS

challenges of prisoner reentry. Crime Delinq. Res. Assoc.

TRANSITIONS FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY 113

Annual Review of Sociology

Beyond Rational Choice Theory, Raymond Boudon 1

DIFFERENTIATION AND STRATIFICATION

You might also like