< Back

Evidence of the importance of social ties

Our team was lucky enough to work with Briana Vecchione during her time with Blue Ridge Labs’s Catalyst program to compile the following literature review.

Introduction

Recidivism is a principal concern among the recently-incarcerated, with over half of all returning citizens arrested within the first year of release and an estimated 76% rearrested within 5 years time [11]. New York’s incarceration rate stands out internationally, with 443 of every 100,000 people ending up in prisons, jails, immigration detention, and juvenile justice facilities [28]. Put another way, at least 267,000 different people are booked into local jails in New York each year. In New York state alone, over 100,000 people are released from prisons and jails every year and have to face the challenges of reentry, motivating a great need for effective interventions to reestablish themselves in society [12]. Current recidivism interventions, such as reentry programs, are largely ineffective for a number of reasons, including funding and capacity constraints, weak social ties, and literacy barriers [26]. Funding for reentry programs has reached 30-year lows despite a growing number of caseloads, “often leading to burn-out for... frontline employees” [33]. Although reentry programming research is somewhat limited, a considerable body of literature shows that returning citizens with high degrees of social support are less likely to recidivate [3, 13, 23]. In fact, some researchers claim that those with high social support are 27% less likely to be rearrested and go so far as to say that “sustained economic security [is] rarely achieved” without meaningful relationships [18, 23].

A proposed solution to the problem of weak social support ties is by establishing and emphasizing strong communications through the implementation of a mentorship model [19]. Touchdown NYC does exactly that. By employing a model which leverages technology as an avenue towards effective reentry, Touchdown NYC’s approach allows for a greater number of returning citizens to be connected to high-quality mentorship regardless of geographical constraints. This, however, is not without its challenges. Returning citizens have varying levels of technical literacy and it can be intimidating for some to employ the use of the Internet or mobile phones after being unable to access these resources for years or decades. The use of technology also requires some degree of trust, since personal and potentially identifiable information may be required and prohibited due to parole restrictions [30]. Touchdown NYC uses a human-centered approach which seeks to motivate the use of technology platforms by connecting returning citizens to mentors who have personally navigated the reentry process successfully. These mentors act as advocates and provide assistance when navigating difficult reentry requirements, such as employment, temporary housing, and benefits. It is the team at Touchdown NYC’s belief that “those closest to the problem have the greatest insights into potential solutions” and can serve as an invaluable source of social support in order to empower returning citizens to build a successful life after being released [40].

Barriers to Successful Reentry

Returning citizens are faced with a multitude of challenges and impeding barriers to success upon reentry. Former prisoners need to immediately establish basic material needs, such as access to food, housing, transportation, employment, and healthcare services. These citizens are additionally disadvantaged with poor education, limited housing options, and inadequate job skills and are more likely to come from “economically or socially disadvantaged backgrounds” [10].

With respect to education, the National Institute for Literacy reports that 7 out of 10 inmates possess the lowest levels of “mathematical and prose literacy” and struggle at “reading basic media...or computing basic mathematical calculations [17]. This both limits potential options for employment and provides returning citizens at a disadvantage when learning new skills. This translates to their potential to secure stable employment, and studies have shown that the stigma associated with having a criminal record reduces the likelihood of being called back for a job interview by 50% [32]. Furthermore, legislation in many states restricts those former prisoners from licensure for up to 800 different occupations [9]. Employment itself may not be enough to cover all financial obligations. Some returning citizens are confronted with debts incurred prior to arrest, outstanding child support payments, court costs and fees, criminal fines, tax deficiencies, and other restitution costs [35].

If returning citizens do secure employment, they are faced with the challenge of reliable and timely transportation, which presents the risk of tardiness and job loss. Neighborhood effects also influence the degree to which a returning citizen is likely to recidivate: Those who live in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas are more likely to recidivate, while those who live in affluent areas are more likely to recidivate less [20].

Re-learning skills such as seeking employment, managing finances, and prioritizing one’s time is filled with cognitive emotional stress such as confusion and anxiety, often leading to postrelease depression [14]. Mental health stressors make returning citizens at risk for substance abuse, many of which already have a history of usage. One study shows that “73.6% of individuals in the criminal justice system have substance abuse involved with their criminal behaviors and those with substance abuse issues have higher rates of recidivism” [4, 5]. Literature has also linked offending with poorer health outcomes, including serious illnesses and the need for hospital treatment [34]. Chronic health problems are experienced by most people leaving prison and the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy leads to the termination or suspension of Medicaid upon release, leading to concerning gaps in medical coverage for returning citizens [1, 24].

The Effects of Positive Social Support

Many scholars and practitioners believe that social support initiatives such as peer mentorship are “a promising avenue for community reentry” and are ultimately effective in reducing recidivism [10, 16, 37]. Interventions involving peer support influence a host of positive effects, including addiction mitigation, drug treatment adherence, the establishment of strong social supports, the development of self-efficacy, and an overall greater quality of life [2, 25]. A strong social support system addresses many of the barriers to successful reentry, including “increased psychological well being” [41], “access to occupations through social ties” [21] and better health outcomes [22].

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely for returning citizens to have a pre established support system on their own. It is important to distinguish the varying efficacy levels between social support and recidivism depending on time of intervention as well as type of support. Familial support is overwhelmingly cited as the most effective social support connection because of its strong correlation with “lower drug use, greater likelihood of finding jobs, and less criminal activity”, but many returning citizens can not depend on their families because of ostracization, shame, active disengagement due to negative influence from family members, disinterest from family members to engage with the returning citizen’s reentry process, or complete absence of family members in general [15]. Close connection with families provides the opportunity for housing, financial support and the ability to take advantage of social networks for potential employment, and those with more advantaged, supportive families are an indicator of reentry success [18]. Nonmarital romantic partners have the same potential as family members to encourage desistance and provide material support and social connections [15].

The positive effects of relationships with friends, however, are less encouraging. Many individuals report their old friends as unhelpful and that the temptation to reconnect with them prompt a return to unhealthy or illegal “old habits” such as substance use, abuse, or crime [27]. For this reason, it is common for parole officers to advise against or even prohibit these relationships in order to prevent relapse [27]. Some returning citizens without any form of social support are forced to shelters, which are not conducive when trying to avoid violence or drugs and are “three times as likely to abscond from parole” [27].

Social support alone, however, is not enough. Some researchers claim that a “multiplicative effect of social support on reconviction” is present, meaning that private support (charitable contributions) and public support (welfare) must operate in tandem in order to reduce the likelihood of reconviction [31]. Another finding recommends that returning citizens should be provided with earlier and more robust pre-release programs to better prepare them for job readiness, community service, and life-coping skills in addition to a personal support system in order for successful outcomes [7].

Existing reentry programs, both prerelease and postrelease, have been “characterized as reactionary or even detrimental to successful transition from prison to society” [7]. Traditional reentry programs focus on connecting returning citizens to short-term and emergency resources and are “never sufficient on their own to provide economic security” or meaningful social ties [18]. In fact, returning citizens who have successfully navigated the path of reentry overwhelmingly report weak social support as a “major barrier that oftentimes remains neglected in government and non-profit organizational programming” [10] and frequently expressed need for “a mentor to guide them to make everyday decisions, peers with whom to share struggles, and a support system to hold them accountable for their lifestyle and behavior” [10]. While services which address employment, housing, transportation, and education are valuable, social support programs should also provide a safe and supportive community environment. Importantly, relationships between returning citizens and their social support systems do not have to be preestablished in order to be effective. Mentors are not punitive, adversarial, or associated with the criminal justice system, but instead serve as a source of encouragement and motivation [55], promoting a sense of trust and candor between the mentor and mentee.

Conclusion

By connecting returning citizens with mentors who have personal experience successfully navigating reentry, Touchdown NYC hopes to pioneer a model which eliminates existing barriers and fosters interpersonal connection as well as access to opportunities in order to empower thousands of New York City residents returning to society with the tools, skills, and confidence they need to succeed. By supplementing existing resources with high-quality mentorship, returning citizens are provided an avenue for strong social support in order to increase the ease of which they’re able to assimilate to the everyday challenges of life and decrease their likelihood of recidivism. There will always be challenges to address and difficulties to overcome, but the promise of a foundational social system which offers safety, encouragement, and knowledge is central to Touchdown NYC’s mission to provide support and guidance for those tasked with the difficult job of successfully navigating reentry.

References

[1] Albertson, Elaine Michelle, et al. "Eliminating gaps in medicaid coverage during reentry after incarceration." American journal of public health 110.3 (2020): 317-321.

[2] Andreas, Demetrius, Davis Y. Ja, and Salvador Wilson. "Peers reach out supporting peers to embrace recovery (PROSPER): a center for substance abuse treatment recovery community services program." Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 28.3 (2010): 326-338.

[3] Bales, William D., and Daniel P. Mears. "Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism?." Journal of research in crime and delinquency 45.3 (2008): 287-321.

[4] Beck, A. J. (2000). State and federal prisoners returning to the community: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics website: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/sfprc.pdf

[5] Belenko, S., Peugh, J., Mendez, D., Petersen, C., Lin, J., & Hauser, J. (2002). Trends in substance abuse and treatment needs among inmates. Final report. Retrieved from National Institute of Corrections website: http://www.nicic.gov/Library/020901

[6] Berry, P. (2018). Doing time, writing lives: Refiguring literacy and higher education in prison. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

[7] Breese, Jeffrey R., Khaz Ra'el, and G. Kathleen Grant. "No place like home: A qualitative investigation of social support and its effects on recidivism." Sociological Practice 2.1 (2000): 1-21.

[8] Champion, Nina, and Kimmett Edgar. "Through the gateway: How computers can transform rehabilitation." Prison Reform Trust and Prisoners’ Education Trust (2013).

[9] Cromwell, P., Alarid, L., & delCarmen, R. (2005). Community-based corrections (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson-Wadsworth.

[10] Denney, Andrew S., Richard Tewksbury, and Richard S. Jones. "Beyond basic needs: Social support and structure for successful offender reentry." Journal of Quantitative Criminal Justice & Criminology (2014).

[11] Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[12] Durose, Matthew R., Howard N. Snyder, and Alexia D. Cooper. "Multistate criminal history patterns of prisoners released in 30 states." Special Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015).

[13] Duwe, Grant, and Valerie Clark. "The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and employment." The Prison Journal 94.4 (2014): 454-478.

[14] Ekland‐Olson, Sheldon, et al. "Postrelease depression and the importance of familial support." Criminology 21.2 (1983): 253-275. [15] Fontaine, Jocelyn, et al. "Families and reentry: Unpacking how social support matters." Retrieved from the website of the Urban Institute: http://www. urban. org/research/publication/families-and-reentry-unpacking-how-social-support-matters (2012).

[16] Garcia, Janet. "The importance of the mentor–mentee relationship in women’s desistance from destructive behaviors." International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 60.7 (2016): 808-827.

[17] Haigler, Karl O. Literacy behind Prison Walls. Profiles of the Prison Population from the National Adult Literacy Survey. US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328., 1994.

[18] Harding, David J., et al. "Making ends meet after prison." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33.2 (2014): 440-470.

[19] Koschmann, Matthew A., and Brittany L. Peterson. "Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach to prisoner reentry." Journal of Applied Social Science 7.2 (2013): 188-207.

[20] Kubrin, Charis E., and Eric A. Stewart. "Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies." Criminology 44.1 (2006): 165-197.

[21] Lin, Nan, and Mary Dumin. "Access to occupations through social ties." Social networks 8.4 (1986): 365-385.

[22] Link, Nathan W., Jeffrey T. Ward, and Richard Stansfield. "Consequences of mental and physical health for reentry and recidivism: Toward a health‐based model of desistance." Criminology 57.3 (2019): 544-573.

[23] Listwan, Shelley Johnson, et al. "The pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism." Justice Quarterly 30.1 (2013): 144-168.

[24] Mallik-Kane, Kamala, and Christy Ann Visher. Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2008.

[25] Marlow, Elizabeth, et al. "Peer mentoring for male parolees: A CBPR pilot study." Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 9.1 (2015): 91-100.

[26] Muhlhausen, D. "Studies cast doubt on effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs." Crime and Justice (2015).

[27] Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. "The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in New York City." (2011): 72-75.

[28] “New York Profile.” New York Profile | Prison Policy Initiative. www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/NY.html.

[29] Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Ihudiya Finda, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna Dillahunt. "Returning Citizens' Job Search and Technology Use: Preliminary Findings." Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2018.

[30] Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Ihudiya Finda, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna R. Dillahunt. "Towards an effective digital literacy intervention to assist returning citizens with job search." Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2019.

[31] Orrick, Erin A., et al. "Testing social support theory: A multilevel analysis of recidivism." Journal of Criminal Justice 39.6 (2011): 499-508.

[32] Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Naomi Sugie. "Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records." The annals of the American academy of political and social science 623.1 (2009): 195-213.

[33] Pedtke, Julie. “Social Ties and the Reentry Journey.” Medium, Touchdown NYC, 21 June 2021, medium.com/touchdown-nyc?p=540927be6f5b.

[34] Piquero, Alex R., et al. "Research note: are life-course-persistent offenders at risk for adverse health outcomes?." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44.2 (2007): 185-207. [35] Richards, Stephen C., and Richard S. Jones. "Beating the perpetual incarceration machine: Overcoming structural impediments to re-entry." After Crime and Punishment. Willan, 2013. 219-250.

[36] Reisdorf, Bianca C., and R. V. Rikard. "Digital rehabilitation: A model of reentry into the digital age." American Behavioral Scientist 62.9 (2018): 1273-1290.

[37] Sells, Dave, et al. "Peer-Mentored Community Reentry Reduces Recidivism." Criminal Justice and Behavior 47.4 (2020): 437-456.

[38] Smith, Valerie S. Exploring the Potential of Digital Technology to Reduce Recidivism: A Delphi Study on the Digitalization of Prison Education. Diss. Ashford University, 2020. [39] Taylor, Claire. "Brain Cells: Listening to prisoner learners." (2014).

[40] Touchdown NYC, www.touchdown.nyc/.

[41] Weill, Joanna M. Incarceration and social networks: Understanding the relationships that support reentry. University of California, Santa Cruz, 2016.

[42] Western, Bruce, et al. "Stress and hardship after prison." American Journal of Sociology 120.5 (2015): 1512-1547.