This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 28 October 2014, At: 09:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjor20

Reintegration Success and Failure:

Factors Impacting Reintegration Among
Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated
Women
a
Jennifer E. Cobbina
a
Michigan State University , East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Published online: 24 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Jennifer E. Cobbina (2010) Reintegration Success and Failure: Factors Impacting
Reintegration Among Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women, Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 49:3, 210-232, DOI: 10.1080/10509671003666602

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509671003666602

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49:210–232, 2010
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-9674 print=1540-8558 online
DOI: 10.1080/10509671003666602

Reintegration Success and Failure: Factors

Impacting Reintegration Among Incarcerated
and Formerly Incarcerated Women

JENNIFER E. COBBINA
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

Criminologists have explored the reentry experience of formerly

incarcerated adults, documented the pressing challenges of
reentry, the correlates of recidivism, and the causes of desistance.
Given scholars’ focus on reentry to explain what factors impact
criminal outcome, this raises the interesting question of whether
and how such factors shape the process and outcome of reinte-
gration. The current study uses official records and survey and
in-depth interviews of 50 current and formerly incarcerated
women to assess their accounts of what shapes reintegration suc-
cess and failure. Results highlight the utility of an intragender
approach and have import for policy aimed at women.

KEYWORDS incarceration, parole, reentry, reintegration, women

A number of criminologists have explored the reentry experience of formerly

incarcerated adults (Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2005). Studies have documented
the pressing challenges of reentry (Petersilia, 2003; Richie, 2001; Travis,
2005), the correlates of recidivism (Beck & Shipley, 1989; Bonta, Pang, &
Wallance, 1995), and the causes of desistance (Giordano, Cernkovich, &
Rudolph, 2002; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 2001). In particular, research
shows that factors like age, criminal background, drug use, education, and
employment status are important for understanding recidivism outcomes
for men (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Langan & Levin, 2002) and
women (see Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003 for a review), while marital attach-
ment and stable employment are key factors associated with desistance from

Address correspondence to Jennifer E. Cobbina, Michigan State University, School of

Criminal Justice, 510 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA. E-mail: cobbina@msu.edu

210
 Women and Reintegration 211

crime, particularly for men (Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Sampson & Laub,
1993).
Although scholarship on women and reentry clarifies many factors
impacting criminal outcome, an important question is whether and how such
factors impact the process and outcome of reintegration. While the goals of
reducing recidivism and promoting successful reintegration typically overlap,
they are often distinct. In his book, But They All Come Back: Facing the Chal-
lenges of Prisoner Reentry, Jeremy Travis (2005, pp. xxiii–xxiv) underscores
this point:

[C]onnecting a former prisoner with a job may or may not reduce

the likelihood that he will violate the law. But the same job also serves
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

reintegration purposes. It connects him to the habits of work, provides

economic benefits to his family, adds his taxes to the public coffers,
and gives him status in the community. Similarly, assisting a returning
prisoner in establishing a healthy relationship with his family upon return
from prison may or may not reduce his propensity to reoffend. But
a successful familial reintegration may also have a number of positive
effects on the overall well-being of the former prisoner’s family.

Though there are differences in the goals of reducing recidivism and

promoting reintegration, both go hand in hand. Reintegration directly affects
criminal outcome because when former inmates have difficulty adjusting
postrelease, they are more likely to reoffend rather than desist from crime.
Thus, understanding the factors that contribute to ex-offenders’ reintegration
success and failure is an important avenue for continued research. A
comparative approach helps with such analyses, discerning similarities and
differences in offender’s life experiences that help account for reintegration
outcome.
Reentry, however, is a gendered phenomenon, as women’s exposure and
response to life-circumstances postrelease are distinct from men’s. Much of the
research on reentry has been solely conducted on men or men and women
(viewed together), and less is known about women. Research has shown that
although social relationships, particularly marriage, are critical for understand-
ing patterns of offending and desisting behavior among male samples, these
factors may have differential effects on female criminality (De Li & MacKenzie,
2002; Simons, Stewart, Gordon, Conger, & Elder, 2002). Further, women, in
general, tend to establish affectionate friendships and place great value on
relationships (Moore, 1990; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). In fact, studies reveal
that the type of relationships female offenders have with their supervisory offi-
cer can shape criminal outcome, reflecting the import of relationships for
women (Skeem, Encandela, & Louden, 2003; Skeem, Louden, & Polaschek,
2007). Moreover, research on women and reentry documents that females
have co-occurring needs, suggesting that gender-specific programming may
shape post-release success and failure (Richie, 2001).
 212 J. E. Cobbina

Given scholars’ focus on reentry to explain what factors impact

criminal outcome, this raises the interesting question of whether such
factors shape the process and outcome of reintegration. Although some
research has been conducted on women, reintegration, and reentry (Baskin
& Sommers, 1998; Eaton, 1993; Harm & Phillips, 2001; Maidment, 2006;
O’Brien, 2001), few have provided a contextual comparison of current
and former female offenders to identify the factors that shape reintegration
success and failure. To address this issue, I draw from official criminal
records, survey interviews, and in-depth interviews of 50 women. Specifi-
cally, I examine the experiences of 24 formerly incarcerated females to
inductively assess their construction of reintegration success and 26 incar-
cerated women to assess their depiction of reintegration failure. Using a
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

purposive sampling strategy, the goal of the current study is to provide

a contextual comparison of how former and current female prisoners
construct their reintegration experience following their last prison release.
These analyses broaden our understanding of the outcome and process
of reintegration among women and have importance for crafting strategies
to ensure successful reentry.

WOMEN AND REENTRY

There is a general consensus in the criminological literature that social ties

are central to our understanding of crime and desistance. Social bond theory
suggests that informal ties to individuals and institutions inhibit the impulse
to commit crime (Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978; Laub & Sampson, 2003).
Such ties have the ability to change routine activities, mitigate negative peer
contact, foster positive identities, and increase social capital (Coleman, 1988;
Sampson & Laub, 1993; Warr, 1998). Because strong bonds provide indivi-
duals with a stake in conformity, those who lack such ties are most likely
to (continue to) offend.
Although research highlights that quality bonds to a prosocial spouse is
important to desistance among men (Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995;
Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Warr, 1998), evi-
dence suggests that these factors have differential effect on female offending.
The literature documents that marriage and=or romantic partnerships can
reduce offending for women with moderate propensities towards marriage
(King, Massoglia, & MacMillan, 2007), increase female criminality (Alarid,
Burton, & Cullen, 2000; De Li & MacKenzie, 2002), or have variable effects
on offending (Simon et al., 2002). Research shows the complexities that
intimate partner relations have on women’s likelihood of engaging in
criminal behavior. Griffin and Armstrong (1998), for example, show that while
female probationers who cohabited with their husband or boyfriend were less
likely to commit nondrug offenses, they were more likely to sell drugs.
 Women and Reintegration 213

On the other hand, evidence suggests that familial bonds, separate from
an intimate relationship, support desistance. Families represent a source of
informal support in the lives of former female prisoners, as many rely on their
family for tangible assistance, like financial support and housing following
post-release (Arditti & Few, 2008; Mallik-Kane & Visher, 2008). Studies
also show that children often serve as an important catalyst for change.
Many scholars have identified childbearing as an impetus to desist from
crime (Graham & Bowling, 1995; Richie, 2001). The presence of children
can promote a prosocial identity (Giordano et al., 2002) and facilitate greater
cognizance regarding the consequence of one’s own actions (Enos, 2001).
Although studies show that prosocial relationships may impact criminal
outcome, evidence also suggests that social support can positively impact the
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

reintegration process. For example, O’Brien’s (2001) analysis of formerly

incarcerated women linked successful reintegration, in part, to developing
positive networks, suggesting the import of relationship in providing support
and information necessary to survive in the free world. Recently, Maidment
(2006) examined the experiences of women on conditional release to under-
stand how some avoid reimprisonment. This research highlights how familial
and social support networks are paramount to successful reintegration.
Positive social relationships are beneficial for released prisoners to establish
connection with law-abiding citizens and conventional institutions, while
simultaneously providing them with a legitimate identity (Bazemore & Erbe,
2004). Despite knowing the value of social relationships in reintegration, to
date very little research of this type has explored its effect among a compara-
tive sample of former and current prisoners.
As noted, prosocial relationships are an important social network for
offenders returning home from prison. However, such relationships are not
just relegated to informal social networks, like family, but may also apply
to formal networks, such as supervising officers.1 Studies show that the
quality of relationship between female offenders and their supervising officer
can impact criminal outcome. Skeem and colleagues (2003), for example,
used focus group conversations to examine how offender outcome was
shaped by relationship quality between probation officers and probationers.
They found that the quality of probation officer-probationer relationship was
central to probationer outcome (see also Morash, forthcoming; Skeem et al.,
2007). Specifically, respectful and interpersonal relationships that used a firm
but fair approach were more effective in achieving the desired outcomes
than those that were authoritarian (see Andrews & Kiessling, 1980). Likewise,
in their examination of case managers, Angell and Mahoney (2007) found
that relationships characterized by probation officer toughness led to
negative outcomes, such as new arrests.
Finally, research shows that a large array of treatment services that
match offenders’ needs can influence behavior patterns (Andrews & Bonta,
2003). For instance, some studies find that multiple services addressing
 214 J. E. Cobbina

numerous needs of women through various providers are effective (Bloom,

Owen, & Covington, 2003, 2004; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998). Released
female prisoners have multifaceted, intersecting needs distinct from those of
men, stemming largely from victimization, substance addiction, mental
illness, and economic marginality (Belknap, 2007; Chesney-Lind, 1997;
Daly, 1998). As a result, research underscores the importance of using a
comprehensive approach to meet women’s specific needs during and
post-imprisonment, including programs that address poor self-esteem, his-
tory of trauma and abuse, pregnancy, parenting, physical and mental illness,
substance abuse, and barriers to getting help (Bloom et al., 2004; Richie,
2001). This approach has been credited for working with women in need
because it uses a holistic approach to address the complex interrelated
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

problems of female offenders (Rhodes & Gross, 1997), while paying attention
to the pathways women take to crime.
While evidence suggests that gender-responsive programming influence
desistance and recidivism, an important question is whether such services
contribute to successful reintegration among participants or if it contributes
to failed reintegration among those who did not have access. Research
suggests that post-release success and failure are an important area of
study in order to understand the factors that lead to successful reintegration.
Thus, the goal of the current study is to examine the outcome and process
of reintegration from both former and current female prisoners’ point of
view.

METHODOLOGY

Data for this study come from a comprehensive assessment of prisoner reen-
try, recidivism, and desistance among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated
women, and include official records, and survey and in-depth interviews
with 50 women residing in St. Louis, Missouri. The sample includes
26 incarcerated and 24 formerly incarcerated females. Participation in the
project was voluntary, and incarcerated women were paid $10 and paroled
women were paid $30 for their participation. The interviews were voluntary
and both samples were promised strict confidentiality.2
The study design was comparative in nature. Following Maruna’s (2001)
study design, I conducted a systematic analysis of the reintegration experi-
ences of two groups of offenders released on parole during the same time
period: (a) those who were returned to custody two to three years following
their release from prison and (b) a matched sample of women who were not
reincarcerated during this period. Interviews with both incarcerated women
who failed to take pathways towards successful reintegration and female
ex-offenders in the process of reintegration allow for an examination of
similarities and differences in women’s life experiences that help account
 Women and Reintegration 215

for why some manage to successfully transition to the community while

others failed to do so.
Women were recruited to participate in the project based on the
following criteria: (a) they were released on parole in St. Louis City or
County between June 2004 and December 2005; (b) they were released
with at least two to three years to serve on their parole sentence.3 An
objective and subjective approach was used to measure reintegration
success and failure. Women were included in the reintegration success
sample if they did not return to prison for committing an offense two
to three years post-release. Women were included in the failure sample
if they returned to the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center (WERDCC) in Vandalia, Missouri as a result of com-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

mitting a new offense, law violation, or technical violation two to three

years post-release.4 While the objective approach to measuring reinte-
gration was similar to using recidivism as an outcome, this specific defi-
nition was operationalized only during the sample selection stage of my
research. Once the total sample was selected, I departed from any reliance
on official measures to characterize reintegration.
The second criterion for inclusion in the reintegration sample was
subjective, which differs from using recidivism as an outcome. Those
who had not returned to prison were questioned as to who and=or what
had a positive influence on them, and how this aided their transition since
their release from prison. In this sense, women themselves defined what it
meant to successfully reintegrate back into society. Overall, 24 respondents
were categorized as reintegration successors. Those who did return to
prison were asked to discuss who and what had a negative influence on
them following their last discharge from prison, and how this hindered
their transition into the free world. Likewise, the respondents in this sample
defined what it meant to unsuccessfully reintegrate back to the community.
Overall, 26 respondents were categorized as reintegration failures. Although
not perfect measures, the current study has the advantage of a comparative
study that address the reintegration experience facing former and current
female prisoners.
Table 1 compares the respondents in the incarceration and parole
sample with their respective prison and parole populations in Missouri. First,
comparing the characteristics of respondents in the incarcerated sample to
the WERDCC population, the distribution across age, marital status, and prior
number of incarceration5 are relatively similar. The most notable discrepancy
between the two groups is that a larger proportion of respondents in
the incarcerated sample are African American compared to the WERDCC
population. While a greater percentage of women in the incarcerated sample
are African American, this is a reflection of St. Louis. St. Louis City and
St. Louis County are among the top sentencing jurisdictions in Missouri
and both jurisdictions, particularly St. Louis City, have larger populations of
 216 J. E. Cobbina

TABLE 1 Characteristics of WERDCC and Parole Population and Matched Sample of Incarcer-
ated and Paroled Women

WERDCC Incarceration Parole Parole

population sample populationa sample

N % N % N % N %

Race
Black 562 28 14 54 561 21 18 75
White 1407 71 12 46 2074 78 6 25
Otherb 14 1 0 0 17 1 0 0
Age
34 and younger 945 48 14 54 1062 40 9 38
35 and older 1038 52 12 46 1590 60 15 63
Marital status
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

Not marriedc 1585 80 22 85 2003 78 20 83

Married 398 20 4 15 575 22 4 17
Number of prior incarcerations
0 916 46 0 0 1264 49 0 0
1 439 22 8 31 824 32 12 50
2 259 13 9 35 304 12 7 29
3 139 7 4 15 125 5 3 13
4 95 5 1 4 46 2 0 0
5þ 135 7 4 15 15 1 2 8
Offense type
Drugs 665 34 9 35 1011 39 7 29
Property=nonviolentd 736 37 15 58 1234 48 9 38
Violent 402 20 2 8 228 9 8 33
Sex 115 6 0 0 52 2 0 0
DWI 65 3 0 0 53 2 0 0
Note. WERDCC ¼ Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center.
a
The parole population does not include individuals placed in community release centers, as the analysis
has not been conducted by the Missouri Department of Corrections. As a result, each category does not
always have the same sample size. The disparity is the result of offenders in community release centers.
b
Other includes Asian=Pacific Islander and Native American=Alaskan.
c
The marital status of two individuals incarcerated at the WERDCC was unknown. Since the majority of
incarcerated women were not married, they were included in this category, which did not change the total
percentage. The marital status of 43 paroled female offenders in the parole population was also unknown
and included in the category of ‘‘not married,’’ which increased the total percentage by 2%.
d
The Missouri Department of Corrections has a nonviolent offense group as opposed to property offense.
Nonviolent offenses are other offenses, including property offenses, public order offenses, other weapon
offenses, and other traffic offenses.

African Americans than are found in the state as a whole. Second, respon-
dents in the incarcerated sample have a greater percent of property offenders
and fewer violent offenders compared to the population of WERDCC as a
whole.
When comparing the characteristics of the parole sample to the Missouri
parole population, the distribution of age, marital status, and prior number of
incarcerations are similar. However, there are two discrepancies. First, more
than three times the number of women in the parole sample are African
 Women and Reintegration 217

American compared to the parole population within the state. Second, a

much larger proportion of respondents in the parole sample committed
violent crimes compared with the population of parolees in Missouri. These
findings are, in part, a result of examining only offenders from the St. Louis
metropolitan area. Given these discrepancies, as well as the nature of the
study design, the sample is not representative of their respective prison
and parole populations.
Data collection began by obtaining official criminal sentencing
records for the women in the sample, which was used to provide further
statistical information to contextualize the qualitative component of the
research. The interview began with the administration of a survey that
focused on examining women’s pre-incarceration, in-prison, and post-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

prison experiences. The survey provided baseline information for the data
collected in the in-depth interviews and the responses guided the conver-
sation throughout the interview. Women were then asked to participate in
an in-depth interview that was digitally recorded and typically completed
on the same day. The in-depth interviews were semi-structured, with
open-ended questions that allowed for sequential probing. The interviews
were later transcribed and serve as the primary data for this contextual
examination. The goal was to collect data that could provide a relatively
holistic assessment of how former and current female offenders construct
and characterize the outcome and processes of their own reintegration
experience.
During the interviews, women were questioned about their initial
and subsequent participation in crime and contact with the police. Then
they were asked to discuss a typical day in prison, the advantages and
disadvantages of imprisonment, and their involvement in correctional
programs. To tap into their reentry experiences, women were asked to
discuss if and how they secured employment, found housing, reunited
with family, recovered from substance abuse, and received resources that
aided their transition process. Women were also asked to identify people
or agencies that had a positive and=or negative effect on their reentry, and
their perceptions regarding their parole officer and the parole supervision
process.
The in-depth interviews resulted in rich contextual evidence of the pro-
cess of reintegration success and failure. The data collected were analyzed
inductively for common patterns in the way women interpreted and defined
their lives.6 The analyses involved a search for general relationships between
categories of observations using grounded theory method techniques similar
to those suggested by Strauss (1987).7 The data were manually coded, which
facilitated the development of key concepts and themes that emerged
throughout the research process. Although findings are not generalizable,
the study provides an intragender focus to understand the factors that pro-
mote and hinder successful reintegration.
 218 J. E. Cobbina

WOMEN’S INTERPRETATION OF REINTEGRATION

This section explores how 50 formerly and currently incarcerated females

interpreted their own process of reintegration as they moved from prison
to the free world. To examine the post-release experiences from women’s
point of view, I first investigate 24 former prisoners’ construction of
reintegration success, followed by 26 current prisoners’ construction of
reintegration failure. Asked to describe what facilitated their reintegration
efforts, female ex-offenders reported that successful reintegration was the
result of family support, supportive parole officers, and access to post-
release services. On the other hand, reintegration failure was the result
of negative social networks, unsupportive parole officers, and competing
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

demands.

Formerly Incarcerated Women’s Construction of

Reintegration Success
FAMILY SUPPORT
First, family support was perceived as critical to successful reintegration by
many former female offenders in the study. The most common type of sup-
port women received from their family included (a) financial, (b) emotional,
and (c) childcare. Rebecca’s account highlights the economic support she
received from her family postrelease: ‘‘My father has been my support
through it all . . . my dad supported me ‘til I could get assistance.’’ Likewise,
when asked how she supported herself following her postrelease,
44-year-old Gloria stated, ‘‘my brother took care of me. My brothers continue
to take care of me.’’ Similarly, Janelle, a woman in her mid-30s, asserted that
‘‘different family members brought me clothes, gave me money to where I
could have to get where I needed to go, things that I need. So with immedi-
ate family, my regular family, I had a lot of support.’’ These accounts portray
former offenders’ reliance on their family to provide them with material
assistance, such as a place to reside, transportation, and money for necessi-
ties until they became financially independent. Consistent with prior work,
most returning prisoners receive some level of economic support from family
(Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Visher & Courtney, 2006), which is critical for
post-release success.
Not only was financial support important for women’s reintegration
but receiving emotional support was deemed just as meaningful. Shamika,
a 28-year-old female, asserted, ‘‘My daughter, she will come in, hug me,
tell me she love me. It be times when I don’t feel good, you know what
I’m saying. That just brighten my day.’’ Similarly, Gloria, a woman in her
mid-40s, explained how her sisters positively influenced her release:
‘‘They talk to me every day. They write me letters, they send me cards just
 Women and Reintegration 219

because. That’s my influence . . . I might get a letter at home or a card that

say ‘hi, I love you.’ ’’ Receiving emotional support from family was con-
sidered important, as such support made women cognizant of the positive
support networks they had of people who cared and wanted to see them
succeed in conventional society.
Formerly incarcerated women in the sample also reported receiving
concrete assistance from their family in the form of childcare. Childcare
was a common form of support that women’s families offered during their
incarceration and reentry. In particular, 22 of 24 (92%) former offenders in
the study had children with an average of just over two children. Several
women expressed their appreciation that family members were willing to
care for their children during and after their incarceration. LaToya
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

explained:

[A] lot of females are not as fortunate as me to have a family that loves
me to take my kids. ‘Cause a lot of times, if a female go to prison, their
child is stuck, you know, with DFS or they just out there . . . everybody
family is not like my family. I know my family love me and my family will
bend over backwards for me and I know that. And if it wasn’t for my
family, I don’t know where I would’ve been because my kids would
probably been in state custody somewhere.

And after her discharge from prison, Rebecca, a young woman, said ‘‘[my
family] helped with different situations, with transportation, or watching
my kids while I went somewhere.’’ Overall, childcare was a common tangible
source of support that women received from families both during and
post-incarceration.
Thus, as evidenced through their accounts, former offenders’ construc-
tion of reintegration emphasized that a stable positive relationship with fam-
ily members was a vital step in their transition from prison to the community
(Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; O’Brien, 2006). Family support, particularly in the
form of providing financial assistance, emotional support, and childcare
appears to be an important source of post-release success (Nelson, Deess,
& Allen, 1999).

SUPPORTIVE PAROLE OFFICERS

In addition to depicting family support as necessary, most formerly incarcer-
ated women stated that positive support networks included their supervising
officers. Many reported that their parole officer played an integral role in
their reintegration process, which they attributed to three features of parole
officers: their ability to listen, encourage, and provide support. Many deemed
it necessary to have a parole officer who would provide a listening ear, parti-
cularly as they attempted to navigate their life on the outside. For example,
 220 J. E. Cobbina

26-year-old Bridget said, ‘‘[My parole officer’s] very open. I can talk with her
about anything.’’ Mia, a middle-aged woman, stated:

I like Mr. Wight. He cool. He listens . . . . He understands life, like things

happen. It be like I’ve been having this issue with my sister, she has
cancer. For the last past three weeks, she’s been in surgery where
they removed something from her stomach and they had to stop. Then
they had to schedule the other surgery for another week. He’s been real
concerned about that.

Not only did women consider it important to have parole officers listen
to them, but receiving encouragement was just as vital. Asked who had a
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

positive influence on her release, Sandy, a young female, replied, ‘‘My PO

[parole officer] has. She really has ‘cause she believes in me.’’ Similarly,
44-year-old Chantelle explained how her parole officer encouraged her to
stop using drugs: ‘‘Every time she come tell me, ‘Chantelle remember the
12-step.’ She just tell me ‘that’s what’s going to count. Stay clean’ . . . Every
time I come she say, ‘I’m proud of you. You just got to not backtrack.’ ’’ In
this instance, the emotional support Chantelle received from her parole
officer gave her confidence to continue on the straight and narrow path
without the use of drugs.
Because many parole officers showed genuine concern to formerly
incarcerated women’s needs by listening and encouraging them, they often
viewed their parole officer as a friend rather than a supervising officer. For
example, Cleshay, a 41-year-old female, asserted, ‘‘my PO is like my mentor,
my friend . . . she ain’t the type that try to kick you on out of there, and get
you done. She really take the initiative to see what’s really going on with
you.’’ Similarly, LaTisha, a 60-year-old woman, explained:

My parole officer will] be concerned on things that I do. Am I doin’ too

much work? Or how my moods are? If I’m getting’ along with my family?
What my progress is? How do I feel about it? Just concerned.

Likewise, when asked how her parole officer helped her, 44-year-old Alissa
declared:

[J]ust by listening and encouraging me. She’s just a sweetheart, that’s all
I can say. I don’t even see her as a parole officer. I see her as a friend.
I mean I know she is but she listens to me and she gives me good advice.

In addition to the counsel and support women received from their

supervising officer, some also mentioned that their parole officer aided their
reintegration efforts by providing them with concrete assistance. When
explaining how her parole officer helped her, Janelle, a female in her late
thirties, said, ‘‘she helps by any jobs that come through them, she gets with
 Women and Reintegration 221

me and keep me up with them.’’ And Terwanda, expressed: ‘‘She don’

helped me a lot. We talk and she understood. They got copy of my medicine
and medical things. She helped me get some new glasses.’’ As evident in
these accounts, women valued the relationship they had with their parole
officer because they provided them with concrete help that aided their
reintegration.
Interestingly, even despite the context of supervision and control
that parole officers represent in their clients lives, many women described
having close and positive relationships with their supervising officer. While
parole officers have a dual role that they must fulfill, which entails exerting
control on and offering assistance to their clients, most women in the study
underscored how important it was to have a good relationship with their
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

officer. Recent research has demonstrated that when the relationship

between supervising officers and their clients is characterized by trust
and fairness, it leads to positive outcomes for drug-involved and
mentally-ill women (Skeem et al., 2007, 2003). Overall, parole officers
who listened, encouraged, and provided concrete assistance to formerly
incarcerated women in the study were perceived as playing a critical role
in their ability to successfully reintegrate.

POST-RELEASE SERVICES
Even though former female offenders in the study attributed their successful
transition to having supportive family members and parole officers, in most
cases, reintegration was portrayed as the result of having access to post-
release services. In fact, the majority of formerly incarcerated women in
the sample reported involvement in several community-based organizations
at some point during their interview. Such accounts were tied to receiving a
range of services that met their specific needs. Of her own experiences,
Sandy, a 34-year-old, explained what she found helpful about her involve-
ment with community based agencies:

There was going to be something out there to help me get started with
the way to go. They sent you with the job thing by applying. They had
other job contacts and stuff like that. The clothes, the apartment, I
thought that was kind of cool.

Janelle, a 37-year-old woman, said that Project Connect8 ‘‘had a lot of

things to offer you if you willing to accept. They help you with housing,
furniture, different programs, they will help you try to find you a job.’’
Having services that assisted women with housing, employment, clothing,
and other essential items was viewed as integral to successful reintegration,
as they are common challenges that most returning offenders contend
with post-release.
 222 J. E. Cobbina

But in addition to the use of gender-neutral programs, a few women

also discussed the importance of being involved with agencies that met their
gender-specific needs, such as providing childcare assistance and parenting
services. Janelle, a young woman, stated that the Center for Women in Tran-
sition9 ‘‘help[ed] me with clothes for myself and needs for myself. They even
help me for two years with Christmas things for my children.’’ Likewise,
26-year-old Bridget said, the parenting classes that she was stipulated to take
‘‘was a very helpful class’’ because it ‘‘teaches you patience, and that’s one
thing that I do not have.’’
In sum, former female offenders depicted several factors as impacting
their ability to successfully reenter society. They drew consistently on beliefs
about family support in interpreting their process towards reintegration,
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

describing the importance of receiving financial and emotional support, as

well as childcare assistance. At the same time, they portrayed their parole
officers as playing a significant role in their reintegration efforts. Ultimately,
access to and involvement with post-release services was seen as a significant
contributor to reintegration process. Here we see that a variety of personal
and situational characteristics impact women’s post-prison reintegration. This
becomes all the more apparent when the accounts of reintegration success
are compared with current offender’s characterization of reintegration failure.

Incarcerated Women’s Constructions of Reintegration Failure

NEGATIVE SUPPORT NETWORKS
In contrast to former offenders’ characterization of successful reintegration
resulting, in part, from family support, a number of women who were cur-
rently incarcerated in the sample characterized their reintegration failure as
driven by unsupportive networks. Incarcerated women frequently stated that
their relationship with criminally-involved family members affected their
post-release transition. For instance, Jenny, a female in her 20s, noted
that her sister expected her to commit forgery following her release from
prison:

[My sister] would be like, ‘‘Jenny we don’t have anything to eat. It’s your
responsibility to go get things’’. . . . I know it sounds really crazy, but it’s
like I always had to make sure my sister was happy because she would
always use the kids. ‘‘Well, what are going to do about Beth and
Jackson?’’. . . . I just felt like it was my responsibility to go make sure that
they had something.

And Kristy, a 30-year-old drug addict, explained how she justified her
relapse: ‘‘[My sister’s] doing it [drugs] and I’m gonna hang out with her.
And I’m gonna be around it and I’m gonna do it, too.’’ According to Kristy,
‘‘even if I can give up friends, I could never give up my sister.’’ Kristy raises
 Women and Reintegration 223

a valid point about the difficulty of severing ties with immediate family mem-
bers who participate in criminal activity. Because ‘‘blood is thicker than
water,’’ cutting off family is not simple nor desirable at times. But neither
is staying clean when close family members and relatives engage in drug
activity. This is particularly relevant given that 58% (15 of 26) of incarcerated
women and two-thirds (15 of 24) of paroled women reported having family
who had been or were currently incarcerated. Because the family serves as
one of the most efficient informal control agent in the reentry process, their
involvement in crime often negatively impacts reintegration among released
prisoners.
Incarcerated women in the sample also portrayed unsuccessful reinte-
gration as the result of their male intimate partner who assaulted them post-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

release. Carol, a 34-year-old female, maintained, ‘‘I wasn’t even home two
weeks and [my boyfriend’s] drinking every other night. Then all of the sud-
den it’s every night . . . [and] he was already choking me and beating the crap
out of me.’’ Although Carol eventually left her abusive boyfriend, she
declared, ‘‘I became homeless.’’ And when Betty found herself with no place
to stay immediately following her release, she called the only person she
could think of—her ex-boyfriend. Though he provided her with a place to
stay, she explained how he took advantage of her:

We agreed that I would pay $500 rent and I would pay for the food and I
would pay the utilities, which left him basically with nothing left to pay
for except his personal things. But he started creeping into my room [to
have sex] and I thought that was a bit much.

As a result, Betty left her ex-boyfriend’s house and went on the run. After a
couple of days Betty maintained, ‘‘I did call [my parole officer]. I told
her . . . why I left. She’s like, ‘well just come in and talk to me.’ I didn’t trust
her to do that.’’ Because she was certain her parole officer would send her
back to prison for leaving her place of residence without informing
her, Betty did not report to her supervising officer and went on the run
for over a year until she got caught. In these accounts, women described
undergoing abuse at the hands of their male partners who provided
them with a place to stay. They lacked their own support system, leaving
them to function on their own following their release. Overall, these
negative social networks that women encountered upon their release
from prison made for greater adjustment problems in reintegrating back
into the community.

UNSUPPORTIVE PAROLE OFFICERS

Another theme running through incarcerated women’s accounts of their reinte-
gration failure was the depiction that their parole officer was unsupportive.
 224 J. E. Cobbina

Of the women who had negative relationships with their parole officer, all had
female officers who were over them. The lack of support often stemmed from a
lack of communication between parole officers and their clients and from
parole officer’s having large caseloads. For instance, Christina, a woman in
her 50s, explained that there was very little communication with her parole
officer while she resided at a transitional house:

We didn’t even really talk to those people [parole officer] unless you get
ready to leave. You submit a home plan, they might talk to you for a few
minutes about that . . . But other than that they don’t really deal with you
too much.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

Betty, a 46-year-old female, explained why ‘‘there was no communication

whatsoever’’ between her and her parole officer:

The first thing out of their mouth when I walked in was ‘‘squat and
cough’’. . . . I didn’t feel comfortable enough to open my mouth to her.
Every time I went in I knew all I had to do was give her a urine test, show
her the numbers where I was at. I was on house arrest so she knew
where I was at all the time. I wasn’t comfortable. I never spoke to her.
I just go and pee and hand it to her. She’d get my appointment for the
next time and I was gone.

The lack of communication between Betty and her parole officer had severe
consequences. Recall that after being sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend,
Betty absconded. Although Betty left the place where she was residing
because she was being abused, she absconded from parole because she
believed that her parole officer did not care about her personally. Consistent
with prior studies, evidence indicates that the nature of women’s relationship
with their supervising officer can impact postrelease outcomes (Skeem et al.,
2007, 2003; Angell & Mahoney, 2007).
Moreover, parole officers’ large caseloads led some to be inattentive to
their client’s needs. When talking about her parole officer, Donna, a woman
in her mid-30s, complained, ‘‘she was so busy. Their case overload is so busy.
It would be nice if they had more of them to really help their offenders.’’
Carol, a 34-year-old female, concurred: ‘‘I think [my parole officer] could
have did a lot more if she’d have took a little more time and wasn’t so busy.’’
Consequently, women who had parole officers with huge caseloads often
suffered because they did not receive the assistance that they needed. Carol
lamented:

[T]he three most important things that I needed to get done: mental
health, a job and outpatient drug treatment. She didn’t sit down with
me and actually help me try to figure them out or which one would be
the best for me. She gave me a list and said, ‘‘find one of these, and find
 Women and Reintegration 225

it by this time. Report here by this day and tell me who you’re going to.’’
And that was the extent of it.

Here we see that during incarcerated women’s last release from prison, many
reported having parole officers who were inattentive to the needs of their cli-
ents. This is an important finding, as recall that support from parole officers
played a large role in helping former offenders successfully reintegrate back
into the free world. Admittedly, women who returned back to prison are
more likely to have negative feelings about their supervising officers and
their supervision experience. This is particularly relevant given that 15 of
the 26 incarcerated women who were interviewed (58%) returned to prison
because of a technical violation. Although it is easy to see why those women
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

would have animosity towards their last parole officer, they do make sub-
stantive points that deserve attention. That is, large caseloads and the level
of communication between parole officers and their client seem to influence
the quality of their relationship, further impacting women’s reintegration
efforts.

COMPETING DEMANDS
Incarcerated women also commonly (50%) depicted their reintegration fail-
ure to the competing demands they endured post-release. Many discussed
feeling stressed out about securing a job and fulfilling their requirements
as a parolee. Shauna, a 26-year-old, said when she was discharged from
prison, ‘‘it was, like, hard because I was trying to find a job. I didn’t have
no money. I didn’t have nothing, so it was really stressful first being out.’’
Similarly, Keisha, a 32-year-old, explained:

I had to work. I had to go to treatment and something else . . . . I felt like I

was always rushing . . . . When I did get out it took me a while to find a
job. When I found the job it was a full-time job, and I had to leave work
and go to treatment in the evening. And I’m on house arrest, so I got to
make sure that the schedule—the time that’s scheduled, within the time-
frame that they gave me to be out, or the little box would go off and it’d
be a violation or something.

In addition, a few women also had to care for their children post-
release, which made successful reintegration challenging. Tia, a woman in
her late 20s, said that in addition to finding a job, ‘‘I had to get money . . .
[because] it was almost Christmas time, and 4th of July, and my kids were,
like, ‘oh, Mama, we want this, we want that,’ so—and I wasn’t prepared
for it all.’’ Likewise, once her children returned to her custody within six
weeks of her release, 36-year-old Donna asserted ‘‘I stopped taking care of
myself with the meetings, doing my therapy. I just lost self because every-
thing was so much on me where I couldn’t focus on me anymore.’’
 226 J. E. Cobbina

Moreover, feelings of stress and anxiety are further magnified when

women return to society without any reliable social support. Carol expressed
the overwhelming feeling she faced as she attempted to transition to the
community on her own:

It was overwhelming . . . in the respect that I was supposed to do all these

things, and see this PO and do all this and have these appointments set
up by this and this. And it was just, like, ‘‘wow.’’ I don’t even have a car,
and I don’t even have a license. What the hell am I going to do? And my
mom’s not dependable in the respect of getting me somewhere at a
certain time. If I do get a job, how do I know I can get there? . . . . I
worried about transportation. I worried about a job. I worried about
seeing the PO. I worried about all the things that the PO wanted me to
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

do and still to try to find time and money to eat and sleep everyday
and to get clothes enough to go look for a job. I wanted to try this and
see my kids, and it’s just a whole lot of stuff to try to do in a short period
of time that the parole officer wanted me to get it done in.

The pressure to meet competing demands, however, was not just

exclusive to incarcerated women. Also noteworthy is that some paroled
women voiced similar concerns. Yet, 50% of women in the incarcerated
sample (13 of 26) reported this matter impacted their reintegration efforts
compared to 20% (5 of 24) of the parole sample. Consistent with prior
studies, findings reveal that the co-occurrence of competing demands can
hamper women’s opportunity for successful reintegration (Richie, 2001). In
sum, incarcerated women in the study interpreted reintegration failure as
the result of negative familial networks who encouraged women to commit
crimes, and negative intimate partners who took advantage of them post-
release. Unsupportive parole officers were also depicted as hindering
women’s reintegration efforts, given their inattentiveness to women’s needs.
Finally, the multiple demands that women had to meet post-release were
challenging, making successful reintegration increasingly difficult.

DISCUSSION

Previous research on women and reentry consistently has emphasized

numerous barriers that returning prisoners face when they return to the
community. In addition, a great deal of work on recidivism and desistance
has been amassed. While reducing the role of recidivism is of central impor-
tance, so too is understanding the reintegration process, as it directly affects
criminal outcome. Given increasing attention to the correlates of recidivism
and desistance, the goal of the current study was to compare how current
and former female prisoners in the sample described their reintegration
experiences following their last prison release.
 Women and Reintegration 227

Research findings highlight the importance of contrasting both incarcer-

ated offenders and parolees as a schema to determine what factors matter the
most in the underlying process of reintegration. First, formerly incarcerated
women perceived family support as critical to successful reintegration. It
was common for women to return home to live with their family immediately
following their prison release. Many relied on members of their family to pro-
vide support, including financial, emotional, and childcare (Leverentz, 2006;
Nelson et al., 1999). Because most offenders return home to live with family
(McMurry, 1993), it is not surprising that former female prisoners in the study
stressed the importance of family support post-release.
However, formerly incarcerated women also described having positive
support networks that included their supervising officer. A number of
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

women reported having supervising officers who listened, encouraged,

and provided them with support, causing many to view their parole officer
as a friend. The role that parole officers played in the reintegration process
may be tied more broadly to the import of relationships for women. In
general, women place a great deal of value on relationships (Giordano,
Cernkovich, & Pugh, 1986; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). As a result, when the
relationship between supervising officers and offenders are characterized by
trust and fairness it makes it possible for women to divulge their problems
and discuss how to solve them with their supervising officer (Skeem et al.,
2007, 2003; Morash, forthcoming). Thus, consistent with prior work, the nat-
ure of supervising officers’ relationship with female parolees impacts reentry.
The use of post-release services also facilitated women’s reentry. For
example, most formerly incarcerated women were involved in community-
based organizations, which assisted them with employment and housing.
The use of gender-specific program, such as childcare assistance and parent-
ing services, also aided women’s transition from prison to the free world.
Findings are consistent with previous research that documents the need for
gender-responsive programming to address the treatment needs of women
in and out of prison (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003); how-
ever, they also suggest that gender-neutral programs may be useful if they
meet returning offenders’ specific criminogenic needs (Andrews, Zinger,
Hoge, Bonta, & Cullen, 1990, Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Although some assert
that intervention services that focus on surveillance, substance abuse, and
employment are not enough to assist returning female offenders (Holtfreter
& Morash, 2003; Jacobs, 2003), the current study suggests the need for both
gender-neutral and gender-specific programs that address women’s crimino-
genic needs.
From a policy perspective, this finding speaks to the importance of
providing a range of post-release services to recently released offenders.
Community-based transitional programs should be developed to assist
returning females with temporary housing, job placement assistance,
childcare, health care, public transportation, referrals for treatment, and case
 228 J. E. Cobbina

management. A comprehensive approach should be used to meet women’s

specific needs during and post-imprisonment (Bloom et al., 2004; Richie,
2001). In fact, summarizing findings from a national study on effective
program elements, Koons, Burrow, Morash, and Bynum (1997) reveal that
addressing women’s multiple needs is a main element conducive to program
success. Thus, community service providers should be cognizant of the
challenges returning offenders face post-release and make attempts to meet
their specific needs to ease their transition to society.
While the strategies that formerly incarcerated women used aided their
reintegration efforts into the community, failure to use such strategies hin-
dered incarcerated women’s ability to successfully reintegrate. Incarcerated
women in the study described that their association with negative support
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

networks led to their reintegrate failure. For some, contact with criminally-
involved family members and abusive male partners made reintegration
difficult. Thus, it is necessary to develop programs for families of inmates that
foster healthy ties. Programs should focus on strengthening relationships
between incarcerated women and their family, and prepare both parties
for women’s return home.
Furthermore, women identified that unsupportive parole officers made
reintegration challenging, as they failed to provide them with assistance.
Some reported that their parole officer was inattentive to their needs and
others complained of a lack of communication. In reality, probation and par-
ole officers have large caseloads with an average of 80 plus parolees per offi-
cer (Clear, Reisig, & Cole, 2006), depending on the level of activity involved
with the supervision. Clearly, the large caseloads affect how much assistance
parole officers can provide to their clients. With that said, empirical evidence
demonstrates that smaller caseloads result in higher recidivism rates because
intensive supervision leads officers to uncover more of offenders’ misdeeds
(Petersilia & Turner, 1990). While it is easy to see how smaller caseloads will
allow parole officers to detect higher rates of offending behavior, larger case-
loads make it difficult to provide services. This ultimately impacts the nature
of relationships that supervising officers have with their clients, possibly
decreasing the likelihood of reintegration.
The current study highlights the insights to be gained by examining how
former and current female prisoners construct their understanding of their
reintegration experience following their last release from prison. Although
there have been strides made in the development of prisoner reentry, to date,
most focus on the outcome of recidivism and desistance (Bonta, Pang, &
Wallace-Capretta, 1995; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Giordano et al., 2002;
Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993) or have been largely focused on male
experiences. Yet, there is ample theoretical evidence to suggest that the
reentry and reintegration process is gendered. Understanding the unique
experiences of women will enhance our theoretical knowledge on reintegra-
tion process and help to inform responsive policy for returning offenders.
 Women and Reintegration 229

NOTES

1. The term supervising officer is used synonymously with probation and parole officer.
2. Pseudonyms are used throughout.
3. In all, 323 women were released to parole sentenced by St. Louis City or St. Louis County between
June 2004 and December 2005. Of those women, 124 were placed on parole, 31 had been discharged, 11
had absconded, and 57 were incarcerated. Of the 124 women on parole, 82 were located in the St. Louis
area. Of those women on parole, 51 did not return to prison. Many of the paroled women who met the
sampling criteria were unable to take part in the study for a number of reasons: 9 refused (18%), 4
absconded (8%), 2 were in jail (4%), 2 wanted to participate but had work conflicts (4%), and 1 each
had their parole revoked (2%), were off parole supervision (2%), failed to show up when an interview
was scheduled (2%), or died (2%). Women who were selected to participate in the study but unable to
do so were substituted with other paroled women from the population who met the sampling criteria.
Of the 57 women who were currently incarcerated, 52 were housed at the WERDCC. Eleven percent of
incarcerated women who met the sample criteria refused to take part in the study or were released before
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

the interviews. This problem was rectified by replacing these women with other incarcerated women in
the sample population who met the sample criteria.
4. The Women’s Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center is one of two women’s prison
located in the state of Missouri and is located approximately 90 miles from St. Louis.
5. No one in the incarcerated sample had zero numbers of prior incarceration since the sample criteria
required all participants to have been incarcerated and released between June 2004 and December 2005.
6. Throughout the chapters, I use the terms the vast majority to indicate approximately three-quarters
or more; most or the majority to indicate more than one-half; many to indicate more than one-third;
a number to indicate approximately one-quarter or more; and several or a few to highlight themes
mentioned by a small number of women but more than two.
7. Although I used grounded theory methodology I did not strictly follow this approach, which
requires more theoretical sampling rather than purposive sampling technique.
8. Project Connect is a program designed to assist offenders in the successful reintegration back into
the community by providing a strong support system consisting of community members and organizations
working together with the Department of Corrections.
9. The Center for Women in Transition is an organization that provides women who have been
released from jail or prison with an array of referrals and services to help them achieve stable housing
and employment, receive drug treatment, and reunify with family.

REFERENCES

Alarid, L. F., Burton, V. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Gender and crime among felony
offenders: Assessing the generality of social control and differential association
theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 171–199.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional
practices: A summary of the CaVic research. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.),
Effective correctional treatment (pp. 441–463). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Butterworths.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does
correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed
meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–429.
Angell, B., & Mahoney, C. (2007). Reconceptualizing the case management relation-
ship in intensive treatment: A study of staff perceptions and experiences.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health Services Research, 34, 172–188.
 230 J. E. Cobbina

Arditti, J., & Few, A. (2008). Maternal distress and women’s reentry into family and
community life. Family Process, 47, 303–321.
Baskin, D. R., & Sommers, I. B. (1998). Casualties of community disorder: Women’s
careers in violent crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bazemore, G., & Erbe, C. (2004). Reintegration and restorative justice: Towards a
theory and practice of informal social control and support. In S. Maruna &
R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender
reintegration (pp. 27–56). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Beck, A., & Shipley, B. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2004). Women offenders and the gendered
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

effects of public policy. Review of Policy Research, 21, 31–48.

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research,
practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Corrections.
Bonta, J., Pang, B., & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1995). Predictors of recidivism among
incarcerated female offenders. The Prison Journal, 75, 277–294.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. London,
England: Sage Publications.
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2006). American Corrections (7th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Daly, K. (1998). Gender, crime, and criminology. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of
crime and justice (pp. 85–108). New York: Oxford University Press.
De Li, S., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). The gendered effects of adult social bonds on
the criminal activities of probationers. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 278–298.
Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. R. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women:
Complications of reintegration. Prison Journal, 81, 42–54.
Eaton, M. (1993). Women after prison. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a women’s prison. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors
of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Pugh, M. (1986). Friendships and delinquency.
American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1170–1202.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and
desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of
Society, 107, 990–1064.
Graham, J., & Bowling, B. (1996). Young people and crime. London, England: Home
Office Research Study.
Griffin, M. L., & Armstrong, G. S. (2003). The effect of local life circumstances on
female probationers’ offending. Justice Quarterly, 20, 213–240.
Harm, N. J., & Phillips, S. D. (2001). You can’t go home again: Women and criminal
recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 3–21.
 Women and Reintegration 231

Hirschi, T. (1969). The causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: The University of

California Press.
Holtfreter, K. L., & Morash, M. (2003). The needs of women offenders: Implica-
tions for correctional programming. Women and Criminal Justice, 14,
137–160.
Horney, J., Osgood, W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term:
Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances.
American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673.
Jacobs, A. (2000). Give ‘em a fighting chance: The challenges for women offenders
trying to succeed in the community. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
King, R. D., Massoglia, M., & MacMillan, R. (2007). The context of marriage and
crime: Gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

Criminology, 45, 33–65.

Koons, B. A., Burrow, J. D., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and offender
perceptions of program elements linked to successful outcomes for incarcerated
women. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 512–532.
Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kruttschnitt, C., & Gartner, R. (2003). Women’s imprisonment. In M. Tonry (Ed.),
Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 55–135). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau
of Justice Statistics: Special report (NCJ No. 193427). Washington, DC: Office of
Justice Programs.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent
boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Laub, J., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal
offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological
Review, 63, 225–238.
Leverentz, A. (2006). People, places, and things: The social process of reentry for
female ex-offenders (NCJ No. 215178). Washington, DC: National Criminal
Justice Reference Service.
Maidment, M. R. (2006). Doing time on the outside: Deconstructing the benevolent
community. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical,
mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-Convicts reform and rebuild their lives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McMurray, H. (1993). High risk parolees in transition from institution to community
life. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 145–161.
Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks.
American Sociological Review, 55, 726–735.
Morash, M. (forthcoming). Women on probation and parole: A feminist critique
of community programs and services. Boston, MA: Northeastern University
Press.
 232 J. E. Cobbina

Morash, M., Bynum, T. S., & Koons, B. (1998). Women offenders: Programming
needs and promising approaches. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (1999). The first month out: Post-incarceration
experiences in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
O’Brien, P. (2001). Making it in the ‘‘free world:’’ Women in transition from prison.
New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1991). An evaluation of intensive probation in California.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 610–658.
Rhodes, W., & Gross, M. (1997). Case management reduces drug use and
criminality among drug-involved arrestees: An experiment study of an HIV
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 09:48 28 October 2014

prevention intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Richie, B. E. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their
communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime and Delinquency,
47, 368–389.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning
points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Simons, R. L., Stewart, E. A., Gordon, L. C., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2002). A
test of life-course explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior
from adolescence to young adulthood. Criminology, 40, 401–434.
Skeem, J. L., Encandela, J., & Louden, J. E. (2003). Perspectives on probation and
mandated mental health treatment in specialized and traditional probation
departments. Behavioral Sciences & Law, 21, 429–458.
Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship
quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 19, 397–410.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Towards a gendered theory
of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Visher, C., & Courtnery, S. (2006). Cleveland prisoner’s experience returning home.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36,
183–216.