The Criminogenic Influence of Family on Substance Use During Reentry: A Life-Course Perspective on Between Individual Differences and Within Individual Changes

Abstract

A large body of prior research has demonstrated a clear link between family support and desistance from substance use during reentry. Emerging research also suggests that family conflict may play an independent role in this process. Accordingly, this study moves towards an understanding of how baseline between-individual differences in both family support and conflict prior to release interact with within-individual change in the respective constructs to affect substance use during the reentry time period. Results of cross-lagged dynamic panel models examining four waves of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative data demonstrate baseline between-individual differences and within-individual changes in family conflict, but not support, significantly relate to polysubstance use. While these results suggest that families play a criminogenic role in reentry, a series of interaction terms demonstrates that within-individual increases in family support can help offset the negative influence of family conflict.

Keywords:

• prisoner reentry
• life-course criminology
• family
• longitudinal modeling

Notes

¹ To ensure we were capturing polysubstance use as opposed to just alcohol use, we removed alcohol from the measure. Substantive results of the analyses were similar. Further, descriptive statistics demonstrate very similar frequencies of use as well as a very high and significant correlation between alcohol and other substances (r = .742).

² The weights—derived from Pandina et al. (1981) are: Alcohol = .358, Marijuana = .617, Stimulants, Amphetamines = .863, Sedatives = .882, Hallucinogens = .909, Cocaine = .946, Heroine, Opioids, and Methadone = .976.

³ We note that the item “I consider myself a source of support for my family” may better align with how much support one gives to their family and not how much they receive. Yet, as Bucklen and Zajac (2009) find, being a “family man” is representative of being in a supportive relationship with family members. This support likely occurs in both directions whereby an individual receives support from the family and also provides support in return (see Bucklen & Zajac, 2009, p. 252–253).

⁴ Confirmatory factor analyses and principal component analyses (not shown) further demonstrate that family support and family conflict are distinct factors.

⁵ SVORI researchers asked respondents if they were incarcerated for “some other offense” not included in the list of items provided.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Thomas J. Mowen

Thomas J. Mowen is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. His research explores the impact of punishment on families and youth as well as the role and importance of family within the reentry process.

John H. Boman

John Boman is an Assistant Professor at Bowling Green State University in the Department of Sociology. His research is primarily focused on developmental issues, peers and social relationships through the life-course, and theory.