9.4: Incarceration and Release

The offender must be readied for return to society through programs aiding in offender growth and development which is important but equally critical is the rethinking of the entire system (Petersilia, 2000; & Travis, 2000; & Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006). Family members are impacted by the offender as is the victim and the community and they too must be made whole in a restorative justice approach (Travis, 2000). However for this post I have chosen a separate field of discussion and that is the family financial support system critical in prisoner reentry.

The behavior of offender offspring(s) is often emulated and is a consideration of the reentry program (Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006). Children’s development may be negatively impacted via low income because it prevents parents from purchasing essential as well as socio critical materials, experiences or services as indicated by economic theory. Most offenders return with little or no money or savings (Petersilia, 2000). Reisig, Holtfreter & Morash (2002) contend “Generally, social theorists posit that a variety of positive outcomes is associated with healthy social networks...According to contemporary social theory, kin and non-kin social networks provide social resources that can produce a variety of desirable outcomes including employment, access to training and education, as well as instrumental, social, and emotional support” (p.167-168).

Ryan, Kalil, & Leininger, (2009) findings add to a long tradition of research illustrating the importance of social support, broadly defined, to the economic survival and emotional well-being of low-income. Specifically, the research demonstrates a significant and substantively important association between the availability of a private safety net and children’s internalizing symptoms and positive behaviors. Their work found the nature and strength of these associations across the two data sets in-spite of difference between operation of private safety nets in Fragile Families (which emphasized material support) and National support.

Ryan et al. (2009) find:

A positive association between private safety nets and children’s socioemotional well-being, but a different finding could have emerged. Qualitative literature on the dynamics of social support suggests that because mothers often receive informal support only on the condition of reciprocity, help from mothers sometimes can induce as much stress as it alleviates (Antonucci & Jackson, 1990; Howard, 2006, cited by Ryan et al., 2009) both because mothers worry about repaying their debts (financial or otherwise) and because the exchanges can complicate interpersonal relations. In these ways, mothers’ private safety nets could undermine their emotional well-being and consequently their parenting or expose children to negative relationships, either of which could disrupt children’s socioemotional development” (p. 294).

These studies indicate that rehabilitation or treatment has been the narrow scope of reentry qualifiers as the authors intimate it is the economic safety net that must also be taken into consideration. It does not assume a free pass but would require outcomes such as the resource is available for periods of training and job seeking. The funding is allocated directly to housing or grocery or medical staff (to name a few). One may ask at this juncture why safety nets are discussed (specifically economic nets). The fact is that they are an unintended consequence of offenders incarcerated and may or may not be appreciated in the over-all calculation of the cost of crime. A second consideration in addressing safety nets is the cost of Domestic Violence in America and hidden costs.