Unraveling Change: Social Bonds and Recidivism among Released Offenders

Abstract

Correctional researchers have increasingly focused on social bonding as a key pathway by which parolees desist from crime after release. Most work to date has focused on levels of bonds, either at reentry or as a function of events occurring in the community. However, few have assessed whether the magnitude of change in bonds during incarceration has an additional effect on desistance. Distinguishing between levels and change with respect to bonds may have important implications for understanding how bonds impact behavior. This paper addresses this gap by drawing on survey data from a sample of inmates at the start and end of their six-month prison terms. Recidivism is assessed as a function of change in social bonds (attachments and beliefs) from entrance to exit from prison, as well as levels of bonds at release. Our findings indicate that changes in social relationships predict recidivism, whereas improvements in prosocial beliefs do not. The data also suggest that the level of prosocial belief at release is significantly related to recidivism, whereas the level of attachment is not. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords:

• incarceration
• recidivism
• social bonds
• survival analysis

Acknowledgments

This project was supported in part by 2003-DB-BX-004, awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, coordinates the activities of the program offices and bureaus. Funding was provided by the State of Maryland, Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention, BYR N-2003-1063 to the University of Maryland. Points of view or opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or any state agency. Institutional Review Board approval was received from the University of Maryland.

Notes

1. Hirschi (1969) was clear that attachment was most important with respect to the four social bonds. In addition, he argued (and found) that the bonds were interrelated, which suggests that not including all four here is not likely to be a problem.

2. There was a self-reported prior arrest measure available. However, there is some uncertainty in the validity of the self-report measure—for example, ten respondents reported no arrests when they had at least one officially recorded. In addition, the two official prior arrest variables produced similar results, lending greater confidence that this is a valid measure. Finally, there was more missing data in the self-reported measure than the official arrest variable. For these reasons, the official arrest variable is used.