Substance Abusing Inmates
Lior Gideon
Substance Abusing Inmates Experiences of Recovering Drug Addicts on their Way Back Home
123
Lior Gideon John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York 899 Tenth Ave. New York NY 10019 USA
[email protected] ISBN 978-0-387-09805-0 e-ISBN 978-0-387-09806-7 DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2009942697 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
To Hila, Jonathan, and Eithan my partners to the journey and the place I call home, without you the journey is never complete... L. Gideon
Contents
1
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . Social Background . . . . . . . . . . . Lifestyle Exposure and Routine Activity Differential Association Theory . . . . . Social Bonding and Social Control . . . Social Support Networks . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
1 3 6 8 10 12 15
2
Getting Substance Abusers to Talk The Interview . . . . . . . . . . . Participants Sampling . . . . . . . Interview Process . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
17 19 19 23
3
There Is No Place Like Home—Family Role in the Rehabilitation and Reintegration Process . . . . . . Family Criminal Activity and Drug Relapse . . . . . . . . . . The Causes of Criminality and Addiction . . . . . . . . . . . Family Support and Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spousal Role in Rehabilitation: The Need for Mutual Treatment Lack of Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
25 26 28 29 30 32 32
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision . . . . . . . Control and Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuum of Treatment and Outside Supervision After Release Community Supervision—Incentive or a Leash? . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
37 38 41 43 46
5
What Do I Need to Succeed? Perception of Motivation and Its Role in the Reintegration Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivation for Change and Self-Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Self-Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49 50 52
. . . .
. . . .
vii
viii
Contents
The Contemplation Stage: Sincere Motivation . . . Gaining Employment as an Indication of Motivation Making It “On My Own” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
52 54 54 56
Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Employment in the Rehabilitation Process What Have I Got to Offer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trust Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
59 60 61 64 67 68
7
Mentoring Others . . . . . . . . . . . . Been There Done That . . . . . . . . . . Preaching the Practice (Passing the Torch) Giving and Receiving . . . . . . . . . . Commitment—Being a Role Model . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
71 71 73 75 76 78
8
Dealing with Social Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the Belly of the Beast to the Belly of Bureaucracy . . . Absorption Agents and Social Support—Can Someone Show Me the Way? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
81 82
. . . . . . . . . .
85 88
6
9
10
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
What Does Migration Have to Do with Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same Story, Different Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Information and Discharge Planning . . . . . . . . . Systematic Exclusion from Certain Jobs . . . . . . . Stress and Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Struggle to Survive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
91 92 98 98 101 103 107 109
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
115 121 129 130
Conclusion—Reintegration and Continuum of Care Theoretical Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations and Disclaimers . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
List of Figures
8.1
Type of follow-up intervention in the community after release from the Sharon prison-based (TC) program . . . . . . . . . 88 10.1 Theoretical model—continuum of treatment in a theoretical context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
ix
List of Tables
2.1 2.2 9.1
Demographic profile of inmates in the Sharon prison between 1994 and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Comparison of interviewees’ sample with total Sharon population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Barriers of integration and assimilation differentiated by status, coping mechanisms, and solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
xi
Acknowledgments
The ideas presented in this book are a result of a long journey, characterized by ups and downs, smooth and bumpy roads. Nevertheless, the journey is somewhat complete, and the book is out calling for a new journey to begin; a journey into the depths of what is hoped to be a new multi-disciplinary approach. An approach that will examine offenders’ reintegration and develop related policies to ease their transition from incarceration to the community while improving the quality of life for both inmates, their families, and the communities they return to. Before my departure to such journey, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who made this journey possible, and helped make the experiences and ideas presentable in this manuscript. At the top of the list without a doubt is Welmoed Spahr, Senior Editor at Springer, who embraced the idea of the book and supported its inception. Welmoed gave me the confidence to pursue this project, while giving me the leeway of creativity, along with good advice and encouragement. She was also the first to believe in this project, and I hope she will be pleased with its outcome, as I am. Katie Chabalko, Assistant Editor at Springer, was also supportive and willing. Her assistance and guidance during the final stages of preparation for production are highly appreciated. Marlene Lipson, a dear friend and my personal editor, spent long hours to make my ideas and writing into a clear and readable manuscript. Marlene is by far the most studious person I was blessed to work with during the past five years. Her comments and editorials without doubt improved the presentation of the ideas set forth in this book. For this I am thankful. Hung-En Sung, my colleague, volunteered his time to listen and read my unconventional ideas. His comments were always very precise and valuable. Hung-En always kept an open mind and brought valuable insight into this work. I was truly blessed by having him as a colleague. Without knowing this, Dr. George Palermo, the editor of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, had a hand in the inception of this book. Three of the chapters presented in this book where initially
xiii
xiv
Acknowledgments
published by him in the JOTCC in one form or another, not before he made sure that the ideas reached a level of perfection. He was also supportive and encouraging in each and every endeavor. I would also like to extend my gratitude to those anonymous reviewers that read the chapters and provided me with valuable input. Money, the driving force behind each and every project should not be ignored, nor should the people/agencies that provided it. The Israeli Anti-Drug Authority was the initial sponsor for this project. They provided me with the funds to establish the sample of participants used in this book. Yossi Vilner, from the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority guided and assisted me immensely during the first stages of this study by sharing his valuable experience gained from years working with released offenders. He is also the person who helped me locate the eligible inmates who participated in this study. John Jay College, my home for the past five years, has contributed to this manuscript by providing me with funds for editorial work through its Research Assistance Program for 2009–2010, for this I am thankful. Last, but definitely not least, I am filled with gratitude to those special individuals who took part in the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community and were willing to share their experiences of reintegration with me. In the long hours of conversation I learned great deal from them, and became aware of many of their true distresses. No matter where I met with them—in prison, or out in the community—they were always inviting and willing. This study could have never been completed without their valuable input. I hope the ideas espoused by this book will find the way to better their lives and the lives of those who share their experiences.
For a long time, everything felt alien, like one of those movies where a person is frozen in a block of ice, and when it thaws he discovers he’s in the same place but in a different time. It seemed I was moving about at a different pace than the rest of the world; like for three years, the world was speeding ahead while I’d stood still. (Nathan McCall, 1994, p.228)
Preface
Reintegration and Migration Asking released inmates how they reform their lives is the key to their individual Pandora’s Box. Anyone who has ever dealt with released inmates and rehabilitation of offenders knows that answering this question is not an easy task. There are more than 9 million people imprisoned worldwide (Dammer & Fairchild, 2005), and it is known that the majority of them will be released back to the community. Currently in the United States there are about 700,000 people reentering the society after serving time in state and federal prisons (Travis, 2005; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). These numbers are much higher for jail inmates, which are estimated in the millions each year. The fact that more than two thirds of offenders sentenced to jails and prisons have histories of substance abuse (Chaiken, 1989; Chavaria, 1992; Inciardi, 1993; Inciardi, McBride, & Rivers, 1996; Leukefeld & Tims, 1992) makes reentry and reintegration practices even more difficult. According to Clear, Cole, & Reisig (2006), increasing portions of these newly released inmates are not only older, and characterized by longer periods of imprisonment, but also have higher levels of substance abuse. Furthermore, studies have shown that drug abusers display higher recidivism rates (Inciardi, 1993; Spivak, 2000). This is especially true for drug-abusing offenders who did not receive treatment during their incarceration. Studies have shown that in such cases offenders were about four times more likely to recidivate than their counterparts who received some form of treatment (Martin, Butzin, Saum, & Inciardi, 1999; Page & Mitchel, 1988; Wexler, Melnick, Lowe, & Peters, 1999; Yablonsky, 1989). The lifestyle of most drug-abusing offenders before their incarceration and after release—and especially for those who did not experience any form of treatment—is completely different from that of recovered addicts who participated in detoxification and rehabilitation while in prison. For xvii
xviii
Preface
many released offenders, returning home as drug-free individuals will be the toughest challenge they will face. This challenge will not be theirs alone, as this struggle is often shared by others in their immediate social environment, and even sometimes by their families. The social world as released offenders know it will be as different to most as demonstrated by McCall (1994) in the opening quotation: “Old friends and associations must be neglected if they want to succeed in their recovery.” Similarly, Christiane F., a teenaged girl who recovered from heroin addiction, writes in her autobiography: “When an addict is away from his [drug abusing] ‘scene’ he feels lonely and totally helpless” (Christiane, 1979, p.161). Indeed, as revealed in the chapters of this book, many who recovered from addiction and reentered their communities drug-free described such loneliness and helplessness as they lost the comfortable, secure zone that they had as substance abusing individuals. Some of the individuals interviewed for this study expressed their lack of confidence in dealing with people and situations once they were drug-free. This situation is surprisingly similar to the experiences of new migrants, who many times feel forlorn and lonely in their new environment. As many immigrants will attest, the first few months are the toughest, as you are new to the environment and the environment is new and strange to you. However, unlike a migrant who may only feel dejected or homesick, a released offender may discover that finding a job, securing a residence, and other activities often taken for granted are challenges that can also be the triggers that will send them back to their old deviant drug-abusing behavior. Nevertheless, many released substance abusers and released recovering substance abusers find themselves in situations very similar to those who left their country of origin to pursue a better future in a different unknown country. Those who migrated at some point in their life will find the experiences of the participants in this study somewhat similar to their own. They will experience the difficulty of meeting new people and gaining their trust, face challenges of finding employment and residence, and deal with the frustration sometimes associated with local bureaucracy. For both groups, their experience is the experience of those taking a journey to begin a new life. This book is a product of a wider study that examined substance-abusing inmates who participated in a prison-based therapeutic community (TC) and were followed for up to 7 years after their release (for a full description of the study see Gideon, 2002; Shoham, Gideon, Weisburd, & Vilner, 2006). The study, as well as findings described in this book, examines the difficulties faced by those inmates upon release, while making an effort to shed light on the social support networks available to recovered addicts upon their release while reintegrating and assimilating into the normative community.
Preface
xix
Specifically, this study examines the perceptions of those individuals who participated in a prison-based therapeutic community and their experiences of recovery, reentry, and reintegration back home. In other words, this book will describe the challenges faced by recovered addicts who were released from a prison-based therapeutic community and their journey to freedom—freedom from drugs and freedom from criminal involvement. While such descriptions will enable us to better understand the process of reintegration, the book will make an analogy of their process to the difficulties faced by immigrants. The two final chapters of this book will discuss the analogy in more detail, while presenting a theoretical model that highlights the importance of the treatment continuum in discharge planning, and its effect on successful reintegration and assimilation. Unfortunately, not all released inmates interviewed for this study managed to complete this journey, and it is equally important to learn from their experiences as well as from those who succeeded. We will begin by exploring the background of those who participated in this study, followed by a theoretical discussion exploring the forces and factors that may be responsible both for becoming a drug addict and for successful recovery from such abuse. Using central criminological theories like differential association and social bond theory, in addition to two rational choice theories—routine activity and lifestyle exposure—findings from the interviews will be used to analyze and discuss the experiences of those who made the journey back home.
Chapter 1
Theoretical Framework
Substance abuse was once thought to be the “poor man’s disease,” but is now perceived as a potential condition of anyone regardless of their social affiliation, gender (although the focus of this book are male drug abusers), or race. For decades, many viewed drug problems as characteristic of the lower strata of society and considered it far from being a middle class problem. Why people begin to abuse drugs is one of the major and most central issues in discussing the abuse of alcohol and psychoactive drugs (Tichman, 1996). Some may argue that an adequate response to this question lies within biological inheritance. Others may argue that psychological factors related to the influence of the substance itself are those which caused the individual to begin to abuse them. However, other scholars may argue that a more satisfactory response to the question may be found in personal cognitive factors. There are those who argue that alcohol and substance abuse are attributable to social and interpersonal factors and not personality or cognitive factors. Other explanations are constructed on situational factors like availability of the substance, mental state of the individual at the time of intoxication, and other environmental, external, and internal characteristics (ibid). Clark and Lab (2000) argued that community factors as well as social surrounding are known to be important factors in any discussion that deals with crime and deviant behavior. However, one cannot ignore the importance of social environment and other relevant community factors in the prevention of crimes as well as in their proliferation and the importance of society and community to the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. After all, each individual has his (or her) own needs, needs that may be met through social interaction. Such interaction affects, in turn, these individuals’ behavior (Wooldredge, 1999). In other words, each society, with its characteristic culture, is a cornerstone of the structure of an individual’s personality and behavior. Thereby, society may be seen as reference framework in which the individual learns how to react and learns how to behave in different situations L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_1, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
1
2
1
Theoretical Framework
while acquiring his own personal set of “social tools” that will enable him to manage socially and culturally in the future as a member of that particular society. Society is also known to control and guide its members through either formal or informal means. Consequently, when discussing the ways in which we can treat, rehabilitate, and reintegrate released inmates, and in particular recovered drug-addicted ex-inmates, we ought to examine the crucial social mechanisms that are essential in shaping an individual’s behavior. Cheung and Cheung (2000) demonstrate how we can use “social capital” as an effective framework for analyzing and understanding social factors and processes as related to detoxification and rehabilitation of drug-addicted offenders. Social capital is defined by Coleman (1988) as follows: Social capital refers to those resources embodied in the structure of social relations including interpersonal ties and institutional linkages (e.g. family, schools, work, and community settings). It includes knowledge and sense of obligations, expectations, trustworthiness, information channels, norms and sanctions, resources that can facilitate actions, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would be possible . (Coleman, 1988, p. 98)
Therefore, we can argue that Differential Association theory, Social Bond theory, as well as Labeling theory are integrated into social capital, which is the focus of their examination and analysis. According to Cheung and Cheung (2000), positive rather than negative social capital will contribute to better chances of detoxification and rehabilitation. Thus this current study was guided by a number of criminological theories for the explanation of crime, and criminal behavior, as well as the rehabilitation possibilities. Moreover, such theories relate to the theoretical rationale of “therapeutic communities,” a treatment modality that was at the heart of the study (also see Gideon, 2002; Weisburd et al., 2002, 2006). In fact, the current study used the theories given below as guidelines: 1. Rational theories Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978) and Meier and Miethe (1993) Lifestyle Exposure (micro) and Cohen and Felson (1979) Routine Activity Theory (macro). 2. Differential Association Theory (Sutherland and Cressey, 1960, 1978). 3. Social Bonding Theory (Hirschi, 1969) and Containment Theory (Reckless, 1961). However, a theoretical discussion would be difficult without a proper discussion of the social background that leads the individual to his addiction. Such a discussion is equally important, as it casts light on the general characteristics of the individual addicts, as well as on their social capital as
Social Background
3
discussed by Cheung and Cheung (2000). Therefore, only after discussing the social background of the addicted offender could we examine the theories mentioned above regarding the venues in which addicted and recovered offenders can be rehabilitated and reintegrated.
Social Background The willingness to experiment with substances forms and develops as a result of an interaction between an individual and the social systems with which he/she interacts. According to Serban (1984), most juveniles who experiment with alcohol or drugs do so for the sake of entertainment, and not as a result of a deep-rooted mental and/ or social problem. On the other hand, Napier, Bachtel, and Carter (1983) found higher probability to experiment and abuse drugs among individuals characterized by broken homes, or where the relationships between family members were blemished. In such cases, using substances were usually associated with the effort to cope with family hardships, as a way of reducing stress in the absence of other legitimate control mechanisms. Leaning on the work by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), Nagin and Paternoster (1994) argue that criminality and in particular drug abuse, are characterized by low attachment to confirmative others, as well as high levels of egotism (self centeredness). Studies conducted in Israel on drug abusers show that addiction to opiates is frequently associated with low-economic status in combination with few qualifications to manage in the society (Shcham, 1988). However, as stated at the beginning of this chapter, addiction does not exclusively relate to low-socioeconomic levels, and there are middle and higher class individuals who experiment and abuse drugs such as MDMA (i.e., “ecstasy”), heroin, and the like. Nevertheless, most studies focused on the low-socioeconomic classes. Indeed, Ronel (1993), examining participation in NA (Narcotics Anonymous) meetings in Israel, noted that most members of NA he observed can easily be described as lowsocioeconomic status. Moreover, Ronel argues that these people can also be characterized by their dissident of normative social values (ibid). This finding was observed a few decades ago by Albert Cohen (1972) in his famous article Delinquent boys—the culture of the gang, where he argued that boys from low-socioeconomic backgrounds do not care much about the values of the middle class. One explanation to the above may be found in situational factors, such as the low availability of resources and the deprivation of opportunities. According to that study, the rage of change and adjustment needed and expected from members of the low-class are far too apart to be able to bridge the gap, and therefore the goals are seen as unrealistic (see Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Merton, 1938, 1964). This gap between
4
1
Theoretical Framework
goals and means to achieve them cultivates stress which in turn may result in retreatism. Additionally, the high availability of illegal substances in lowstatus neighborhoods is an important factor to be considered (Tichman, 1995, 1996). To achieve the desired change in lifestyle, drug addicts need to go a long way. Not only are they members of a nihilistic subculture that reject every aspect of the normative noncriminal society, they also tend to shut themselves off from the normative society. As a result another subgroup, within the nihilistic subculture, that focuses on illegal drug use while ignoring every normative aspect and activity is being formed. Thus their livelihood revolves around the “drug landscape” or, in other words, on the ways in which they can get the drugs, places where they can use it and the other situations aligned with their subculture’s outlook. As long as the addicted individual remains in this landscape he cannot abstain from future drug use as all other nondrug activities are considered to be those of an outsider and do not coincide with the addicted lifestyle (Ronel, 1993; Sommers, Baskin, & Fagan, 1994). According to Tichman (1995), the drug addicted subculture allows its members to isolate themselves as much as possible from the wider society and its values (i.e., oftentimes the values of the middle class). Not surprisingly, for most members of the drug addicted subculture, adjusting and conforming to the values of the normative society will be interpreted as reconciling with and returning to their low status. This is exactly what Merton (1964) referred to by using the term retreatism. Since only a small percentage of members of this subculture manage to overcome the stratification barriers by vocational training, earning education, and other measures, abusing drugs is perceived to be comforting while isolating members of the subculture and forcing them to retreat from the norms and values of the wider society (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960). The combination of compulsive drug abuse and criminality as way of life, contradictory to the values of the wider normative society and its roles and regulations, generate a distinguished social identity (Ronel, 1993). Part of this identity is the process of becoming a member of the drug addicted subgroup, which becomes the ultimate self-perpetuating peer group. The peer group becomes a reference framework that protects its members from the opposing normative society. Consequently, the drug addicted subculture introduces the individual directly to the drug market while enabling him to act freely on his addiction. These claims were supported by Hawkins and Fraser’s (1989) study on the networks of drug addicts before and after treatment. Their findings strengthen the argument according to which active addicts are found in a relatively social isolation. In addition, Hawkins
Social Background
5
and Frazser (ibid), argue that the social network of the addicted person is very limited in comparison to those available in the normative population. Interestingly it was found that only few of the members in the addicted network expressed a desire to be like other members in their addicted network, while the majority reported they do not want to be like anyone else in their group and some even expressed revulsion from their peers (see the autobiography of Christiana F., 1979; Ronel, 1993; Sommers et al., 1994, p. 138). The addict’s decline into drugs and the addicted subculture contributes to the sense of isolation from the general normative society. Not only does the addict segregate himself from the general society, but he also alienates his family. Such alienation increases the bewilderment, alienation, and anger of family members toward the addict, which in turn amplifies the sense of isolation from the family circle. Moreover, the addict exhibits a spectrum of negative behavioral conduct that is in conflict with social norms. This combination of factors deepens the seclusion of the addict and those around him, while enabling the addict to break off responsibility for other family members (Kingery, Mirzaee, Pruitt & Hurley, Heuberger, 1991). It is important to note that most addicts use family members to help them support their habit, which, in turn, backfires on them while increasing their isolation. The process described above is a spiral one that begins at the first drug use and introduction to the drug subculture and group and ends at the bottom of the spiral where the addict may find himself segregated and alienated, and its the same way his family members and close friends feel toward him. As long as the addict continues with such behavior that is shaped by the drug subculture, his chance of escaping the spiral decreases. However, the scenario described above is not solely shared by the lower class or any other specific social stratum. The addiction is characterized by the end result when the addict is labeled as a “junkie” and his social background becomes secondary in importance (Ronel, 1993). The importance of the factors that caused the individual to engage in the addictive subculture becomes of no importance once the individual enters the spiral. The spiral process becomes the sole defining characteristic. Even while this is true it is wrong to argue that all addicts are alike in terms of their characteristics, nature, and lifestyle, as their experiences differ and they are affected differently by their addiction. For example, there are addicts who live a very regular and normal life and will never be involved in any criminal activity other than purchasing the drugs. Additionally, Ronel (1993) states that there are addicts who will not isolate themselves from the normative society and will continue their social involvement regardless of their habit.
6
1
Theoretical Framework
When examining the background of drug addicts and their addiction cycle, it becomes clear that the majority of (but not all) addicts can be characterized by negative social capital and often, in addition, by low social status.
Lifestyle Exposure and Routine Activity An individual’s behavior cannot be examined out of context. In particular, no assessment can be made without proper examination of the conditions and circumstances that lead to a certain cycle of behavior. Specifically, different life experiences and exposures lead to different situations and further experiences. We tend to assume that one’s behavior is a product of rational decision making that is a decision in which gain and “pain” were taken into consideration. We can examine criminal behavior, drug abuse, and rehabilitation of offenders using the same rational decision making assessment that we used in explaining crime and other undesired behaviors. The decision making will use a combination of two rational choice theories: 1. Life-Style Exposure (LSE) by Hindelang et al. (1978), and Meier and Miethe (1993) examines micro level interaction among individuals in a society. 2. Routine Activity (RA) by Cohen and Felson (1979) and Felson (1996) that examines macro-level aspects of behavior in a social context. These two theories might help us better understand the decision making process experienced by individuals while focusing on the factors that increase the likelihood of criminal involvement and of drug use that often goes with it. However, these theories emphasize the characteristics of the victim as well as the characteristics of the given situation in which an incident occurred, as related to the criminal act. According to Routine Activity theory, criminal activity is a result of a situation in which the opportunity to commit the crime collide in time and space with a motivated offender and a lack of supervision (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Felson, 1996). Therefore, the criminal act (and in the case of this study, drug abuse) will occur in the presence of other individuals that support and encourage such behavior and abusing drugs, in particular (Dull, 1983; Sommers et al., 1994). This argument is supported by the “drug landscape” that was mentioned previously and is also backed by Hawkins and Fraser’s (1989) study where it was found that drug addicts are rewarded by their peers while being encouraged and supported by them. Such recompense and appreciation support the addict in
Lifestyle Exposure and Routine Activity
7
his addiction, as well as in other aspects of his isolation. Alternatively, if the potential is absent, whether due to lack of appropriate opportunity, lack of support from others, or when the expected risk exceeds the expected benefit, the individual will refrain from behaving in a criminal manner, and in particular refrain from using drugs. The assumption that demographic differences (such as age, level of education, marital status, etc.), as well as socioeconomic differences will affect an individual’s lifestyle is the basis of the Life-Style Exposure theory. According to the LSE theory, lifestyle not only affects the nature of social relations but may also dictate them, as was mentioned previously (see Meier and Miethe, 1993). According to Garofalo and Gottfredson (1978), demographic characteristics create role expectations. Such role expectations are products of social structural constraints that affect individuals’ behavior by shaping and adjusting it. The more adherences to structural and role expectations, the more institutionalized the behavior and thus the lifestyle. Therefore, we can argue that the will to satisfy society’s expectations will determine the level and nature of interaction, as well as the level of exposure to risk and the influences of others with whom the individual comes in contact. This is one of the major premises in Sutherland’s Differential Association theory that will be discussed later in this book. Additionally, the pressure of society’s expectations might push the individual into a situation where he experiences high levels of stress, a situation in which he cannot function appropriately and fulfill demands posed in the social environment. Therefore, it is equally important to discuss these conflicting aspects of societal pressure in regard to rehabilitation and reintegration as well. When dealing with rehabilitation and reintegration of recovered drug addicts, these theories can describe the rehabilitation process while comparing lifestyles before and after recovery and rehabilitation. It is thus appropriate to ask the following: Did the individual return to the same social environment? Did the recovered addict stay in contact with active addict friends? What is his life and how has his routine changed? How does he occupy his days? Such inquiry is highly important as it allows us to explain an individual’s behavior in his new social environment, as a drug-free person. In other words, we can ask how the recovered addict reintegrates in the community, and what personal and social processes he experiences in his effort to change addictive behavioral patterns while on his way to becoming a functioning member of the normative noncriminal society (Mulvey and Aber, 1988; Sommers et al., 1994; Stall and Biernacki, 1986; Woldorf, Reinerman, & Murphy, 1991). Additionally, using the rational theories described above allows us to better grasp the cause that steered
8
1
Theoretical Framework
the individual toward his addiction—and from a different angle, to grasp the environment that encouraged his detoxification and rehabilitation as a by-product of his daily routine and personal lifestyle. This is especially important when dealing with drug addicted inmates that sought treatment while incarcerated. During the incarceration period role expectations might shift in addition to a change in the inmate’s lifestyle after release. Dealing with such rational choice theories—lifestyle exposure and routine activity—bring us back to a discussion of more basic criminological theories that emphasize the social aspect. Therefore, a brief discussion of differential association and social bonding/ control is warranted, followed by a discussion in social support networks as one of the main factors in the rehabilitation and reintegration process of the released and recovered addict.
Differential Association Theory Differential Association (DA) theory is a social learning theory that offers explanations on how value-based and interpersonal conflicts are resolved (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978). This theory emphasizes peer group influence and the definitions of its members as to what is a desirable/nondesirable behavior. According to Sutherland (inside Akers, 1997), criminal behavior is learned during the course of interaction with others in a communication process. Such learning is best achieved when done within intimate peer associations. This principle was supported in a study on the social support networks of adult drug addicts, alcohol, and cigarette users where it was found that members have strong influence on other members of the group in regard to marijuana use (Dull, 1983, p. 1615). In other words, general socialization agents such as news and media, as well as other big social groups, enjoy a lower level of influence on individuals’ learning and internalization processes of deviant and criminal behavior than intimate peer groups (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978). This is mainly due to the fact that criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes techniques of committing the crime, and the specific direction of motives, drives rationalization, and attitudes. This principle is unperturbed by the rehabilitation process, a process that should not be examined in isolation from its social context and the “rewards” that are expected. Additionally, according to Sutherland, specific direction of motives and drives are learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable by the members of the group to which an individual belongs. Consequently, a person becomes delinquent if an excess of definitions are favorable to violation of
Differential Association Theory
9
law over definitions which are unfavorable to violation of law (Akers, 1997, p. 60; Hagan & McCathy 1997). Excess in such definitions is a product of frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of socialization to others in the peer group, which is also the small and intimate group. With regard to drug addicted individuals, one can argue that such addictive behavior was learned in the past in small intimate peer groups and has become an acceptable, normative behavior for that individual, according to which drug abuse is the adoption of the group set of values and norms (Alksne, Lieberman, & Brill, 1967; Becker, 1963). Therefore, if the addict will not disengage from other addicts, his odds of succeeding in his detoxification and rehabilitation while maintaining abstemious decrease as he risks negative social capital (Cheung & Cheung, 2000). The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. To illustrate this principle on our topic, we can safely argue that drug addicts receive support and recognition from their peers in the addicted social network (Hawkins & Fraser, 1989). According to Sutherland (inside Akers, 1997, p. 61), although criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. This last principle in Sutherland’s theory is highly important in the detoxification and rehabilitation process in addition to the previous other principles mentioned above. In that regard it is important to mention Glaser’s (1956) “differential identification” according to which an individual shapes his behavior in reaction and according to another social figure that he tends to identify with its values, whether real or fictional (ibid: 440). This again is, critical when dealing with the rehabilitation process. According to the above principles of the DA theory, rehabilitation should be conducted within small intimate social groups, where their members can share amongthemselves the acceptable social norms. The peer group in this case will be other drug addicts who are in the recovery process, or those who recovered and are now in the process of rehabilitating their lives. The mutual past experience of the group members along with their common goal of desistance are the driving force, at least in the beginning stages of the process, for drug abstinence and normative behavior (See Alksne, Lieberman, & Brill, 1967; Cheung & Cheung, 2000). Consequently, the best agent of change will be another recovered drug addict who committed to changing his lifestyle, was trained as a mentor, and can be identified as a role model, or in the language of the addicts “mentor” or “sponsor” (Ronel, 1993). Maruna (2001) calls this generative goal, as will be dicussed later in this book (see Chapter 7). Peer groups are important not only during the detoxification and rehabilitation process, but also when we seek to examine the social surrounding
10
1
Theoretical Framework
to which the addict will return upon release from prison, therapeutic community, or any other therapeutic modality in which he participated. Here, as before, the peer group is highly important in its ability to shape an individual’s behavior using incentives when the individual behaves according to the desired normative behavior, or by using sanctions when he does not. The drug addict who arrives at any treatment center disengages from previous friends and relations, is required not to use street language (language that is associated with delinquent subculture and drug abuse), and is required to abandon former unhealthy social relationships and former criminal and deviant values. Similarly, he is presented with values of the normative social values—legal employment, loyalty to other noncriminal group members, honesty and divulgence of the truth to key figures in the therapeutic community. Above even those expectations, loyalty to the group includes divulgence of other members that misbehaved, or those who failed to adapt to the requirements of the community (see Silbert, 1984). Additionally, while participating in the therapeutic community, the individual learns that past behavior is the sole cause for his past entanglements, while normative and conforming behavior will enable him to achieve his goals without the pain that accompanied them in the past (Goldfarb, 1996).
Social Bonding and Social Control Social Bonding and Social Control theories are highly important theoretical frameworks in the effort to understand addictive behavior, detoxification, and subsequent recovery and rehabilitation. According to Cheung and Cheung (2000), the four elements discussed within Hirschi’s social bond theory are absolutely essential in promoting social capital that is gained through normative social networks. Informal social control elements that are embedded in our society help restrain the individual and prevent him from engaging in a delinquent and deviant behavior. These informal controls stem from social interactions with significant individuals (Bahr, 1979; Rankin & Wells, 1990). The more frequent and stronger the interactions are, the stronger the restraining mechanisms become, and the less likely the individual will turn to criminality. Using Hirschi’s (1969) elements of social bonding, we are referring to “attachment” and “commitment.” Consequently, the receiving agencies in the community are characterized by an enormous influence on the recovered addict’s behavior (see Cullen, 1994; Hawkins, Arthur, & Catalano, 1995). Additionally, studies have shown that recovered drug addicts returning to the same neighborhood after recovery frequently will not succeed in their rehabilitation (De Leon, 1989, 1994; Yablonsky,
Social Bonding and Social Control
11
1989), and especially if such transition is not mediated by agencies that will regulate and diminish the shock of transition by providing guidance, supervision, and protection (Kadman, Tichman, & Hofman, 1995). Similar important ideas also appear in the Twelve-Steps and the N.A. program; according to both, the recovered individual needs to separate himself from other people, places, and objects previously associated with his addiction (see Sommers et al., 1994). For the recovered addict, reconnecting and/or reuniting with family members and normative nonaddicted friends is an important source of informal social control, as such interaction may promote and support the recovered addict in his new path while providing the highly necessary support. In addition, such normative interactions will assist the recovered addict in maintaining conformity to conventional normative community values while abstaining from further drug abuse. The recovered addict is being absorbed into the normative community in this way, and it may be argued that he is also joining a new social network that will not only provide him with the support he needs, but also will supervise his actions. Thus, rebuilding of social ties means reestablishment of a normative and conventional social network, and being a part of that network will result in an increase of positive social capital (Cheung and Cheung, 2000). Such social capital is in fact a by-product of informal social control that becomes possible because the networks reject criminal and deviant behavior; that is, assuming that the network itself is normative and conforms in orientation to the general society (Cullen, 1994; Hawkins et al., 1995; Hawkins & Fraser, 1983; Hirschi, 1969). The presence of such networks does not only provide the recovered addict with supervision, but also reduces the stressors and risk factors that threaten his rehabilitation and reintegration process. This benefit is in large due to the supportive nature of the networks as well as their supervision function. Such support is known to be a protective factor against relapse of recovered addict, whether they are recovered drug addicts, recovered alcoholics, or smokers (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). According to Cullen “social support lessens the effects of exposure to criminogenic strains” (inside Cullen & Agnew, 2003, p. 539), by reducing negative by-products of stress, while supervising and monitoring individual behavioral patterns in stressful situations. Moreover, Cullen indicates that “the more support a family provides, the less likely it is that a person will engage in crime” (ibid: 537). Therefore family support has a crucial role in the rehabilitation and reintegration process (see Cullen, 1994; Wright & Cullen, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Colvin & Pauly, 1983; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Rankin & Wells, 1990; Hagan, 1989; Regoli & Hewitt, 1994). Furthermore, it is argued that when the social environment is characterized by protective factors, the likelihood to turn to drug abuse decreases (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985; Hawkins et al., 1995).
12
1
Theoretical Framework
Indeed, studies conducted during the 1970s that examined the causes of drug abuse indicated coping with stress as one of the dominant self-reported reasons for abusing illegal drugs and substances (Zinberg, 1972; Stanton, 1972; Khantzian, Mack, & Schtzberg, 1974; Lawson & Winstead, 1978). Similarly, it was found that the prime reasons that lead soldiers to experiment with drugs during the Vietnam and Cambodia wars were the feelings of severe mental inconvenience that was associated with extreme stress that the soldiers were exposed to during their service (Zinberg, 1972; Stanton, 1972), in addition to environments saturated with high quality and cheap heroin. However, the majority of soldiers desisted their use once they returned to their homes, as result of lower levels of stress and a much lower motivation to use the drug that was now of lower quality and less accessible (Robins, Helzer, Hesselbrock, & Wish, 1980). In another study that examined the effects of external stressors on criminal and violent behavior, Schlesinger and Revitch (1980) found that weakening of social control mechanisms, in addition to a weakening of social values, were important factors associated with delinquent and violent behavior. Therefore, it is essential to examine and discuss control theories in relation to strain/stress and criminality in general, but also when dealing with drug offenders and their rehabilitation and reintegration process. As noted by Cullen, “. . . across the life cycle, social support increases the likelihood that offenders will turn away from a criminal pathway” (inside Cullen & Agnew, 2003, p. 539). However, in addition to social control, we need to acknowledge Reckless’s (1961) containment theory that emphasizes not just the external social control but also internal control or “inner containment” that is used as the second line of defense when external social controls (i.e., outer containment) had failed (also see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Accordingly, it is equally important to examine internal personal tendencies and predispositions such as the ability to postpone immediate gratification, sense of adventure, and the ability to invest for the short term, as well as observing levels of selfishness, which according to Nagin and Paternoster (1994), do not make social control and social bonding theories irrelevant but supplement and strengthen them. Therefore, it is highly important to discuss the control concept using both external and internal controls.
Social Support Networks The aim of drug treatment programs is not limited only to the detoxification of the addicted person, but also aims to promote and develop the addict’s social and cognitive skills in his effort to reintegrate into the normative
Social Support Networks
13
society by changing previous undesired behavioral patterns while introducing and embracing new normative adaptation and behavioral techniques. In order for the addict to achieve such goals he must in turn depart from the drug landscape into a drug-free environment and get as far away as possible from the culture of drug abuse. In other words, a true motivation to recover from the addiction should be expressed in changing one’s social arena and disengaging previous peers (especially addicted peers) that he was in contact with during his addiction. Specifically a change in the addict’s social network is highly desired and in particular a change from an addictive network (that includes other addicts, drug dealers, and other criminal figures) to a positive normative network (conventional social networks) of other recovering and recovered addicts as well as other normative, noncriminal involved individuals including social welfare agencies, therapeutic communities, and other positive sources of influence. Members of an addictive network are considered to be “contagion agents” who encourage the individual to abuse drugs (Dull, 1983). Conventional social networks can emerge not only as a result of family ties, but also by joining social clubs and community organizations, including self-help organizations and associations (such as A.A., N.A., etc.). According to Cheung and Cheung (2000), such conventional social networks generate positive social capital that provides the addict with the opportunity to learn and assimilate positive social values, as well as to adopt a normative noncriminal lifestyle. By social networks we mean a framework of relationships that binds an individual with other individuals and through them to also bind to other, more remote (not necessarily geographically remote) individuals. Social networks are an essential element of our social lives (Robertson, 1987). In the absence of such networks individuals will face difficulties in operating in social life as such networks are characterized by a great volume of interaction. Moreover, social networks function also as support and assistance networks, aiding individuals to find employment or even to call a plumber. Social networks are also known to be protective against life upheavals, assisting individuals to overcome the difficulties when they lay ahead. Similarly, it was found that married couples, and individuals with close friends and relatives that are willing to help, lead a healthier life, both physically and mentally, in comparison to individuals who lack such connections (Fischer, 1982). Moreover, it was argued that such people manage to overcome life crises better then those who are socially isolated (Fischer, 1982; Fletcher, Newsome, Nickerson, & Bazley, 2001; Kleit, 2001). Similarly, social networks are an important factor to consider when seeking examine the reentry and reintegration process and experience of the recovered addict in the normative community, since such
14
1
Theoretical Framework
networks also provide support and control (Cullen, 1994; Hawkins & Fraser, 1989; Lin, 1986; Robertson, 1987). Kidorf, Brooner, and King (1997) supported this argument when they examined the social support network of methadone users. In their study, they found that most methadone patients received support from nondrug addicted significant others that were willing to take active part in the therapeutic process (Kidorf et al., 1997). Although social networks differ from social support, both serve to connect individuals. Attachment to others in a given social network may promote certain behavior, desirable to members of that specific network, which is rewarded by members of the network. Social networks are known to be effective control agents, although different networks differ in their ability to control for individual member’s behavior (see Hawkins & Fraser, 1989). According to Lin (1986), social support is defined as the instrumental and materialistic means, both emotional and social that is provided by the community and in relationships between couples, whereas social relationships are not just the means but the goal. Such means are provided by the social network in which family members, friends, and sometimes even therapeutic agents are counted. Consequently, “support network” should be defined as relationships that bind the individual with other individuals, and by them to other individuals, more remote, that the individual (in our case the addict), expects them to provide him with support in the form of counseling, encouragement, assistance, and a sense of belonging. These are, in fact, the instrumental, emotional, and social means provided by certain elements affiliated with the relationship, and provided both in the community and in relations between couples. In a study on the social networks of drug addicts before and after treatment, Hawkins and Fraser (1989) found that the network of active drug addicts was very limited and characterized by high level of instrumentality, encouragement to abuse drugs, and engagement in other criminal activities that revolve around the abuse of drugs, such as drug dealing. However, when they examined the social networks of these addicts three months after receiving treatment, the addicts were found to have a network of the same size, or even a wider network than initially observed. Moreover, the treated addicts’ networks were characterized by legitimizing and conforming to the normative noncriminal society’s rules, while condemning abuse of narcotics and criminal behavior. This was in addition to the support provided by members of the treated group (Hawkins & Fraser, 1983, 1989). Discussion of social networks is mainly structural in nature. When discussing social networks we actually find ourselves engaged in the social structure of the individual, and as a result, we examine the forces that shape the individual within his social context. In actuality, we can view “social
Discussion and Summary
15
network” as a concept that brings together the social theories that were previously discussed (lifestyle and routine activity theories, differential association, and social bonding and control theory). Using the social network concept, we can better understand the background of the addicted individual and his difficulty in breaking free from an addictive landscape and drug culture. The social support that the individual enjoys is highly focused, relative to the problems and difficulties faced by the individual. This is exactly the principle upon which self-help groups such as N.A. operate. By being involved in these groups, individuals receive focused support that aims to assist in solving everyday difficulties by receiving counseling and support from others that share the same experience as the former addict. One cannot isolate the discussion in detoxification and rehabilitation of a drug addict from the societal context, that preceded the detoxification and during the rehabilitation process, as such context is highly important in the process of rehabilitation and in understanding the difficulties experienced by the recovering addict. Thus, theories that explain deviance and criminality are also relevant to the explanation of detoxification and rehabilitation processes.
Discussion and Summary In this chapter we have reviewed the complex social background of addicted individuals. Such a complex background generates a spiral of deterioration from which the individual cannot easily escape. Consequently, when discussing the background of the addict we cannot ignore his daily routine and addictive lifestyle. Similarly, we cannot disregard the social context of the addict, as this context embodies the addict’s identity and involves connections to other addicted individuals and other criminal players with whom the individual interacts in order to obtain the drugs. Therefore, discussing Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory in relation to the addict’s behavior enables us to better understand the social processes that are experienced by the individual in the process of becoming a drug addict. Moreover, this theory provides us with an idea regarding a way in which norms and values of the addict may alter as the result of a changed social environment. In that context, Glaser’s (1956), Differential Identification Theory also focuses not only on delinquent behavior, but also examines the manner in which the recovered addict changes his values and norms according to the normative noncriminal group of which he desires to become a member. In addition, Hirschi’s Bond Theory of social control reinforces many of the important theoretical concepts found in differential association theory.
16
1
Theoretical Framework
Control is achieved by connection to others that choose to lead a drug-free normative lifestyle. As a result, by relating to those who define drug abuse as an undesirable negative act, the addict experiences a change in his own definitions toward the drugs, and hence he becomes an active member of a new subculture of recovered drug addicts that aim to become normative members of the normative noncriminal society. By joining this new subculture, the individual addict departs from his old circle of deviant friends and peers and abandons the drug landscape and unhealthy network of addiction in favor of the new normative network. In the presence of his new normative anti-drug network the addict now receives support, counseling, and encouragement. Social support is normally associated with stress/strain. It is a salient assumption that there is a strong negative correlation between the two, in that the more support an individual receives the less likely he is to experience stress, and if he is experiencing stress he will enjoy a strong ability to cope with it when receiving support. Indeed, many studies conducted on the relation between support and stress corroborate this assumption. For example, a study that examined the relationship between economic hardship and mental disorders, found a strong correlation between these two factors; however, stress levels and related disorders were reduced in the presence of a strong, supportive family (Wills & Langner, 1980). Another, later study on the Israeli Society found that stressful societal conditions such as war are preconditions for social and personal aggression, especially when social support networks are lacking or falling (Landau & Beit-Hallahmi, 1983). Therefore, one cannot ignore stress factors as an important factor in generating criminal behavior and drug addiction, as was presented under Hirschi’s Bond Theory of social control. We must acknowledge stress/strain factors from a theoretical point of view that will incorporate conceptual components from the Bond Theory along with social support and social network theoretical concepts. Such networks and support are associated with control theories as expressed by the four main points of Hirschi’s Bond Theory (i.e., attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief).
Chapter 2
Getting Substance Abusers to Talk
The aim of this study was to examine the perceptions of those individuals who participated in a prison-based therapeutic community and their experiences of recovery, reintegration, and reentry back home. In other words, the study seeks to describe the challenges faced by recovered addicts who are released from a prison-based therapeutic community and their journey to freedom, freedom from drugs and further criminal involvement. Consequently, the focus of the study is on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and reentry process of addicted male offenders who participated in a prison-based therapeutic community. Participants examined for this study were drug-addicted offenders who participated in the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community between 1994 and 1997. In order to achieve the above goal and to represent expressed meanings and perception of need and experience during the rehabilitation and reintegration process, a qualitative approach was used to collect and analyze the data. Such an approach better serves the goal of gaining insight while also enabling us to examine and analyze human behavior in its natural surrounding (Bull, 1983). Different from external source of knowledge that stems from positivist and objective research, qualitative research focuses on a much wider and deeper reality, as well as on hidden information about the participants and their perceptions of the world around them (Stake, 1995). Blumer (1969) argued that each and every action is shaped by the individual as a result of his personal perception, interpretation, and judgment of the situation. Therefore, we must examine the situation in the same way the individual experienced it did. In other words, we must use the subjective point of view of the participants we examine when trying to understand the way in which the events experienced by him occurred. Using such an approach enables us to overcome the risk of wrongly interpreting the events observed,
L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_2, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
17
18
2 Getting Substance Abusers to Talk
using the researchers’ prism, instead of those of the individual examined, and in the case of this study, the recovering drug addicts. The qualitative approach seeks to understand the processes that occur within the examined environment, whereas research questions focus on the relation between such processes and studied phenomenon. This is one of the salient advantages of the qualitative research approach that overcomes the disadvantages of the quantitative ones that lean on statistics. Although such statistical methods considered being more objective they do not allow the researcher to gain insight and the essence of the human phenomenon under study, such as perceptions, views, and discretion. While quantitative methods deal with external description of the phenomenon studied, they are not capable of providing a through explanation of internal occurrences within the examined phenomenon (Matza, 1969). The above-mentioned statistical analysis is not sufficient enough, and thus will not be able to represent meanings and perceptions desired by the goals of this study. Additionally, using statistical methods alone may generate the illusion of a certain false reality (Husserl, 1965). Furthermore, using statistics as the sole method of analysis will not enable depth and insight to explain the attitudes, feelings, hunches, and orientation of those inmates during their rehabilitation and reintegration process. Matthews and Pitts (2000) argue that the best way to achieve objectivity and reliability is by combining the two methods (ibid: 138). Moreover, Sayer (1992) argues that it is not sufficient to rely on statistical analysis alone when seeking to evaluate outcomes of treatment programs. According to Sayer it should be essential to gain information from the individuals who participated in the program being evaluated. Consequently, this study will use content analysis of phenomenological interviews with individuals who participated in the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community after their release from the program in order to examine and describe their perceptions and meanings of the rehabilitation and reintegration process. The phenomenological method focuses on describing experiences (see Polkinghorne, 1987, pp. 41–60). Such description is relevant for a study that seeks to understand the affect of receiving environment (i.e., the community) on the rehabilitation experiences. Understanding these experiences is highly relevant and important since the experience and perceptions of the participants in this study occur during the interaction of the recovering addict with others as well as with different social and community institutions, such as the family, friends, job seeking, and the like. Data analysis was being conducted according to content analysis and according to the rules of the phenomenological method. Once the interviews were written, each interview was preliminarily examined, followed by breaking the interview into categories examined in regard to the various
Participants Sampling
19
subjective meanings given to them by the participants. To maintain reliability, quotes were presented with age of the participant (all participants were males) and the assigned number of that participant. When an explanation was needed, such explanation was added in square parenthesis.
The Interview Data for this study was gathered by semi-structured interviews. This method of interviewing is common when the interviewer has only one opportunity to interview the participant (Bernard, 2000). This is the kind of interview that most people write about, where the interviewer maintains directions to follow leads, but the interview guide is set of clear instructions (ibid p.191). In this particular study, by a series of questions that enable standardization of the information the interviewer seeks to obtain. Questions in the interview were open-ended, excluding general demographic information. Most of the questions were in depth when participants where asked to describe and explain their experience and perception of the rehabilitation and later on the reintegration process back into the community. During the interview participants were provided with general theme questions as subtitles to the topic the interviewer was interested in and, in particular, if such topics were not addressed by the participant during the interview. This approach is important in cases where the interviewer cannot foresee all possible relevant variables (see Sommers et al., 1994). The questionnaire appears as an appendix.
Participants Sampling The goal was to locate 50 individuals who were released from the Sharon prison between 1994 and 1997, succeeded in their rehabilitation or failed (i.e., returned to further drug abuse, arrested and/or incarcerated), and to understand the rehabilitation and reintegration process experienced from the time they arrived at the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community until their current situation (between 4 and 7 years). In order to achieve as reliable a sample as possible, a sample of 101 ex-Sharon inmates was drawn from the total population of 421 inmates that were admitted to the Sharon prison between 1994 and 1997. Table 2.1 presents the demographic profile of all inmates who participated in the Sharon program from which the interviewees’ sample was drawn. The 101 were proportionally sampled according to their distribution within the wider population of the 421 inmates. For the second stage, the list with the names of all 101 potential participants was forwarded to the Israeli Bureau of Prisons (IBP), in order for
20
2 Getting Substance Abusers to Talk
Table 2.1 Demographic profile of inmates in the Sharon prison between 1994 and 1997 Characteristics Origin Asia–Africa Europe–America Former USSR Israel Unknown Religion Jewish Other non-Jewish Age Mean years of education Marital status Single (never married) Married Divorced/separated Widowed Area of residence North Sharon Center South Jerusalem Territories Mean age on set (criminal) Mean age on set (drugs) Mean number of arrests prior to the Sharon Mean number of prison sentences N
Percentages/means
11.4% 2.4% 5.7% 79.8% 0.7% 82.4% 17.6% 34.2 (Std. = 6.36) 8.8 (Std. = 2.12) 38.6% 33.7% 27.2% 0.5% 26.6% 14.4% 40% 10.7% 5.5% 1.5% 15.5 23.7 16.87 2.6 421
them to assist in locating those individuals who were re-incarcerated during the time of the study. Out of the 101 potential participants, 43 participants were located in the various facilities spread across the country. These participants were forwarded the request to participate in the study. Only 25 of those located in the IBP signed a consent form. In fact, only 22 were interviewed since two of the 25 were released by the time the interviewer got
Participants Sampling
21
to them, and were not able to be located in the community—the IBP is forbidden by law to track former inmates after their release—another one was transferred to a different facility and could not be interviewed due to security reasons. Out of the 101 potential participants sampled, 58 were free in the community. An effort was made to locate them using the Israeli Prisoners Rehabilitation Authority (IPRA), by sending a letter of request that was followed by a phone call. The letter included the agency that sponsored the study (i.e., Israeli Anti-Drug Authority), the aims of the study and its importance and ways of contacting the research for further information and clarification. The letter asked addressees for cooperation and was followed by a phone call about one to two weeks after the letters where sent to acknowledge receipt of the letter, while reinforcing the request to participate and schedule an appointment for interviewing. The letters where printed on a neutral university stationary and each letter was signed by the author and was addressed personally. Letters were mailed in university envelops so that no potential harm will result from affiliation to the IBP or the IPRA. Unfortunately, out of the letters sent no potential participants became available. A different attempt was made to locate former inmates who participated in the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community. A request was forwarded to the IPRA to provide the counselors’ names, as well as other practitioners that dealt with the Sharon population. This request helped establish a network of treatment providers and clients. The author used this network to forward request to clients who were potential participants in the study using the treatment providers and counselors. When an agreement was available, the name and contact information were forwarded to the author for identification. Identifying the potential participants was a critical stage to eliminate a situation in which the same individual is being approached twice or more (see Sirken, 1979 on the risks of implementing network sampling). The above effort resulted in additional 14 ex-Sharon prisoners. Those interviewed were asked at the end of the interview to connect the interviewer with other potential participants that participated in the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community. Such request resulted in additional three valid participants. Totally 17 participants were interviewed in the community. Generally speaking, participants who are drug-free do not maintain contacts with others who are actively involved with drugs or abuse drugs. In fact, both those participants who manage to maintain their abstinence from drug use and those who did not had reservations regarding the term “friend,” which they argue is a very problematic term. In the drug landscape, there are no “friends” only interests and needs, and thus it was
22
2 Getting Substance Abusers to Talk
very difficult for participants in this study to discuss their relationships with friends, let alone connect the interviewer with others. Consequently, the effort to recruit additional participants, using the social network of recovering addicts and current drug abusers, yield no results. In that regard it is interesting to make the observation according to which loyalty remains a sacred value in the criminal/deviant sub-culture—where naming others is not something you do—even years after the participants were no longer involved in the drug landscape. Those who agreed to assist in locating other potential participants did so while maintaining the privacy of their peers in the following manner: a telephone number of the interviewer was obtained with a promise to ask their friends to contact the interviewer if they agree to participate. Except for two participants, no other phone calls were received. In total, 39 ex-Sharon inmates agreed to participate. Table 2.2 presents a comparison of the interviewees’ sample with the initial sampling frame of the Sharon inmate, on four main demographics to rule-out any potential sampling bias (for a more elaborate discussion on the sampling technique and its ability to represent the sample while minimizing potential bias see Gideon, 2008).
Table 2.2 Comparison of interviewees’ sample with total Sharon population
Characteristics Religion Jewish Marital status Single Married Divorced/ Separated Area of residence North Sharon Center South Jerusalem Territories Mean age Mean education N ∗
Two-Tail T-test.
Sharon population
Interviewees
82.4%
82.1%
38.6% 33.7% 27.2%
30.8% 25.6% 41.0%
26.6% 14.4% 40% 10.7% 5.5% 1.5% 34.2 8.8 421
17.9% 7.7% 48.7% 10.3% 10.3% 5.1% 34.4 8.2 39
Statistical test and significance Chi square N.S. Chi square N.S.
Chi square N.S.
T-test∗ N.S. T-test∗ N.S.
Interview Process
23
As can be seen from the above Table 2.2, no significant differences were observed between the sample of interviewees and that of the Sharon population from which the interviewees’ sample was drawn. These findings are encouraging as they suggest that on the surface no sampling bias existed. However, due to the nature of the sampling it cannot be argued that the interviewees sample is representative of the entire Sharon population. During the tracking phase of the study, we were unable to track participants who lived in the community as active addicts, since this population is extremely difficult to track. Some of the reasons for such difficulties involve the addict’s contextual world, which revolves around looking for the substance, buying the substance, looking for means to buy the substance, and so on. As a result, not many hold steady jobs, or can be located at a specific address. In addition, active addicts are characterized by lack of routine (except for the drug routine mentioned above). This, in addition to not having steady address, makes it extremely difficult to schedule an appointment/meeting with them. Moreover, these individuals have no interest in communicating with researchers, and when they do, they are suffering from very low level of attention that reflects on the interview process and data obtained.
Interview Process As mentioned earlier, interviews were conducted using semi-structured questionnaires. Each interview was tape-recorded with the consent of the interviewee. Interviews were held at numerous sites: prisons, offices of the Israeli Prisoners Rehabilitation Authority (IPRA), and homes of the interviewees. The length of each interview varied substantially. The shortest were 30 min for participants who were unable or unwilling to communicate— these were all participants who were still using drugs and had relapsed after their release from the program. The longest interviews ranged up to 75 min for participants who were eager to describe their situation—these participants were in recovery for a very short period (only few months in their second recovery attempt after the Sharon experience). The interview length for participants who were in continuous recovery was approximately 45– 50 min. The interviewer did not set the interview length; the length was determined by how long each offender was willing to discuss his recovery and rehabilitation process. Interviews were conducted between February and June 2001. Each participant was asked several general demographic questions followed by questions about his abuse and the causes that brought him to such abuse. In the next stage of the interview, participants were
24
2 Getting Substance Abusers to Talk
asked to discuss their rehabilitation and reintegration process and experience while focusing on numerous topics as follows: Describe the first few days/weeks/months right after your release? Do you remember any specific events from that period? Where did you go when you were out? Were you in contact with any self-help group? Did you have any difficulties finding a job?
Chapter 3
There Is No Place Like Home—Family Role in the Rehabilitation and Reintegration Process
The family is perhaps the most important single agent of socialization in all societies. As such, it may also be perceived as the most crucial agent in the rehabilitation process of released prisoners. While information about interaction between the family and the ex-inmate is scarce (Klein, Bartholomew, & Hibbert, 2002), such information is important to the understanding of the rehabilitation and reintegration process, especially with regard to the type of support ex-inmates need. Hale (1988a, 1988b), who focused on female offenders, indicated that maintenance of the offender’s family should be “of vital concern” to the correctional system, thus suggesting that more attention should be given to the family in the rehabilitation process. Furthermore, Braman and Wood (2003) concluded that incarceration not only negatively affects the incarcerated individual but also has further ramifications on the family that might suffer more than the incarcerated individual does. Christian (2005) also supported such a conclusion when she examined the hardships of wives and girlfriends of incarcerated offenders. Moreover, the association between family and criminal involvement and recidivism rates proves that the family should be one of the primary factors to be examined, as such associations were found to be consistent across studies (Cheung & Cheung, 2000; Cullen, 1994; Hairston, 1991; Klein et al., 2002). Nonetheless, Haney and Zimbardo (1998) found that most traditional models of rehabilitation of incarcerated offenders focus more on the incarcerated individuals and their specific needs and less on post-release factors. Support is a central factor in every person’s life, especially for recovering addicts who have been released from prison. These individuals experience Some of the ideas in this chapter were presented in an early shorter version of this chapter published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 51(2), 212–226, in 2007. L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_3,
C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
25
26
3
There Is No Place Like Home
various difficulties while trying to reintegrate into the normative, noncriminal society. For many of them, returning to the outside world while no longer drug addicted and following years behind bars can be traumatic and can result in future relapse due to high levels of stress (see Vaux & Ruggiero, 1983, for their discussion on stressful life change and delinquent behavior). Maruna (2001) describes such phenomena as “escaping the burden of choice.” He claims that such individuals “may feel the indignity of being controlled by circumstances more deeply and painfully” (p. 77). Hence, it is important to learn more about how social support can serve as a buffer from stress for recovering addicts in the processes of rehabilitation and reintegration. It is believed that the family (in particular, the spouse) is the primary agent to provide the offender with the support needed, both while incarcerated and after release from incarceration (Christian, 2005). This is predicated in part on findings that married people are healthier, both physically and mentally, than non-married people (Ren, 1997). However, some studies reveal that low quality relationships, rather than being helpful, may be seen as a state of ”chronic strains” that may result in high levels of stress (Cotton, Burton, & Rushing, 2003). Additionally, as found by Carlson and Cervera (1992), spouses of incarcerated men experience a great deal of strain due to the enormous pressure on their behalf to fulfill the multiple roles of their spouse. This is also true in cases where the husband is addicted to drugs and does poorly in providing for his family (see e.g., Kingery-McCabe & Campbell, 1991). In this chapter we examine the role of the offender’s family, especially the spouse, in the process of rehabilitation and reintegration after participating in a drug treatment program inside prison, as experienced and self- reported by the released offenders. Such examination will augment what is already known about the family role as the primary and most significant informal support agent. Although the family is highly critical as a buffer of stress during the re-entry process, as discussed earlier in this book (Chapter 1), it will be discussed how low quality relationships and family members who did not experience any form of treatment (e.g., family case management, preparation for spousal release, counseling) may contribute to a "backfire" effect by creating more stress that in turn may lead to recidivism.
Family Criminal Activity and Drug Relapse The family is one of the most important informal partners in the process of reintegration and rehabilitation. As the primary, and most significant, socialization agent, the family, if intact in its structure and function, can provide
Family Criminal Activity and Drug Relapse
27
the individual with a sense of belonging and security, both of which are critical for social integration. According to Hirschi’s (1969) social bond theory, attachment to parents helps in preventing youth from engaging in criminal activity. Hirschi (1969) argued that when attachment is strong, the parent is psychologically present, even though physically he is not there, and hence control becomes of an indirect nature. Yet, family relationships can be a two-edged sword. Despite the importance of family, numerous studies on addiction, as well as other mental health problems, have found that such problems as addiction could result, in fact, result from family disruptions, or from complex relationships among different family members (Napier et al., 1983; Jacobs, 1991; Gondolf & Ackerman, 1993; Watt, 2002). Sykes and Cullen (inside Cullen, 1994), for example, argued that the “beleaguered” status of American families is one of the reasons that serious adult criminality begins in childhood. Other scholars have showed that the dysfunctional family is a salient factor in predicting future criminal involvement (Nagin & Paternoster, 1991; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Likewise, when other members of the family, especially one of the parents, is involved in criminal activity, or is an alcoholic, or a drug addict, there is less familial control; as a result, an individual is more likely to engage in criminal activity (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Watt, 2002). Attachment can also stem from intimate relationships, which may be seen as a form of control, and support. According to Beach, Fincham, Katz, and Bradbury, (1996), transactions within the marital relationship appear to be critical in predicting the quality of social support available to a given individual (see also Veiel, Crisand, Stroszeck-Somschor, & Herrle, 1990). Spouses are often considered to be the most important sources of support in time of need and are known to play a critical role in the provision of various types of support while providing forms of supportive behavior (Beach et al., 1996). In addition, it is known that in various circumstances, support provided by an intimate other appears to be uniquely beneficial, “and it is the provisions of close relationships, rather than relationships in general, that are related most robustly to various health and mental health outcomes” (Beach et al., 1996, p. 44). Over the past decade, attention has turned to the relationship between family functioning and criminal involvement in adulthood (see Loeber & Le Blanc, 1990; Nagin & Paternoster, 1991; Nagin & Farrington, 1992; Cullen, 1994). Studies like those conducted by Hagan (1989), Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), and Regoli and Hewitt (1994), “emphasize the criminogenic role that the family plays by the way it exercises or instills control” (Cullen, 1994, p. 537). Accordingly, most drug addicts have long histories of mental abuse and mental deprivation, often at the hands of their families (e.g., Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Rutter & Giller, 1984; Wright & Cullen,
28
3
There Is No Place Like Home
2001). Maruna (2001), in his book on crime “desisters” and “persisters,” describes the harsh physical abuse experienced by his interviewees. He cites offenders who describe their experience of abuse by their parents as “worse than prison” (Maruna, 2001, p. 60). Hence, the impact of the family on the behavior of its members is not something to be ignored. Detoxification and rehabilitation are known to be complex processes that may cause considerable difficulty for members of the family, who may experience anger, anxiety, guilt, worries, and criticism because of the addict’s behavior. It is in these particular stages of recovery that old as well as new conflicts between family members may arise and become more powerful then ever before. Such conflicts may focus family attention on the real problems experienced by the addict and can lead them to become more open toward the addict member. It is also possible that such reactions to past behaviors will generate stressful situations that may result in the recovered addicts relapse to drug use. However, it can also be argued that the family has the strength as a control and a support agent has the strength to aid the recovered addict member to enrich his social capital, thus helping him to overcome the difficulties caused in the past by his addiction, which he must now overcome while re-entering the normative, non-criminal society (Cheung and Cheung, 2000).
The Causes of Criminality and Addiction Why do some people become drug addicts while others do not? What is the common denominator that most drug addicts share? In an attempt to answer this question, interviewees were asked to analyze their life events with regard to what may have caused them to become drug addicts. While studies claim economic deprivation to be the one thing that all criminals and drug addicts share (Ronel, 1998; Shover, 1996), interviewees in this study experienced other kinds of deprivation as well as abuse. Almost all interviewees shared the same story of emotional deprivation and abuse by their parents, as well as by other family members. As one of the interviewees put it: Almost all of those who were in prison with me had the same background as I did . . . mental background, they all shared a difficult mental experience, one was raped . . .. I came from a place of deprivation and poverty, deprivation and poverty of emotions, and this is something that goes for all of us [all drug addicts]. (Participant, aged 30)
The above quote implies that a crucial factor in becoming an addict was not only abuse but also a lack of emotional support. This was also found by
Family Support and Assistance
29
Maruna (2001) in his examination of the Liverpool Desistance Study (LDS) and by others who found a positive relationship between lack of parental attachment and supervision to criminal involvement (Colvin & Pauly, 1983; Hagan, 1989; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). As one of the participants put it: Now I understand that my family has a significant part in my life and that I can not erase my past and I cannot erase my family. (Participant, aged 32)
Family Support and Assistance The family faces difficulties in assisting the recovered addict member to become a normative participant in the every day life activities as he is overcoming his fears. This is especially true if there are no other family addictions or family involvement in criminal activity. Such difficulties increase when none of the family members participate in of the addict’s treatment and are provided with no guidance toward reuniting with the addict/ ex-addict. As these two interviewees explain:
My family knows me differently, suddenly they look at me different, they do not know how to handle with me . . .. (Participant, aged 47) I will never forget the time when I got out. I found myself talking and no one understood me . . . my family, they are all clean [not using drugs], and decent, they are working and living the normative life and I had no one I could sit and talk with. Each one had the stigma of what I did in my past, before I got cleaned and I had this enormous pressure, they all meant well, even though they did not know how to do it with me . . .. (Participant, aged 40)
Most families of drug addicts share the same problems: lack of knowledge about how to deal with the recovered drug addict member. More problematic is the fact that most families are considered to be a part of the problem, as was mentioned earlier, and as one of the interviewees explains:
Most families who have an addict in their lives do not understand that they are a part of the problem . . . families must be invested [in treatment], listen. It’s a very complicated process and families must be invested in it . . .. (Participant, aged 30)
30
3
There Is No Place Like Home
Spousal Role in Rehabilitation: The Need for Mutual Treatment When dealing with the role of the family as a support agent, a distinction needs to be made among different family members and their reactions toward the recovered addict. “Spouses are often named as the person most likely to be turned to for support in time of need, to play a critical role in the provision of some types of support, and to be the providers of almost all types of supportive behavior among married persons” (Beach et al., 1996, p. 52). Brown and Harris (1978) argued that in many cases support that is being provided by an “intimate other” (such as, but not limited to, a spouse) appears to be uniquely beneficial. However marriage (or another intimate relationship) can also be a source of negative support. When asked about problems with family members, almost all interviewees identified their spouse or girlfriend from before treatment. These relationships actually created stress, rather than dissipating it. As two of the respondents noted: I got home and every thing was different, ‘cause . . . my wife also needed to participate in treatment, and she didn’t. A wife that is married to an addict is addicted to the addict, and if she is addicted to the addict she is like a junkie herself. The moment you cleaned up everything was different to her . . . and then all the problems began, we did not get along at all . . . everything was different. If she was going to treatment as I did, I believe that it would have helped . . . a wife of an addict must experience treatment . . . she needs to know how to receive the husband that comes home clean [after years of drug use]. (Participant, aged 41) My wife did not experience this treatment. My wife knows me only as a drug addict, not as a normal individual. My wife got used to seeing me as a junkie who lets her decide, and when I got off the drugs and returned home with an opinion of my own, my wife found it hard to get this [that I can decide by myself] and the fact that I’m interfering in what is going at home . . . only now, in this [present prison] sentence, after I relapsed back to drugs, does my wife go to treatment, and today she understands me more as a user, and exactly what is my problem. (Participant, aged 43)
Judging from the above, reuniting with a spouse is not an easy task, especially if she was not a drug addict and did not receive any treatment or counseling that would prepare her for dealing with this new situation. Detoxification and participating in a long-term treatment program creates expectations that the addict will be easily accepted back into the family and normative society. Problems arise when reuniting with a spouse creates conflicts that may be due to changes in role expectations. According
Spousal Role in Rehabilitation: The Need for Mutual Treatment
31
to the Family System Theory (FST), for one person to change, the entire system must change, and thus a change must occur in the spousal behavior and role (Inglodsby, Smith, & Miler, 2004). As noted above, most ex-addicts thought their wives could benefit from participating in treatment and family counseling, and believed that such treatment could have helped in reducing conflicts; particularly conflicts that stemmed from the spouse’s inaccurate interpretation of the new situation. As explained by these interviewees:
Addicts whose wives are not addicted, there is a problem I never thought of.[My wife], she never went to treatment with me, and as a result se got left behind in a place that she doesn’t even know that it is bad for her. I see things different, things she doesn’t see them, I tell her something must be done, and she thinks only I have a problem. Try and explain to her that she was also screwed in some of the things and that she needs to see this . . .. (Participant, aged 45) I think that ex-cons who are married, one of the factors that causes them to relapse back to drug use is their families, their wives. I think that a woman that lives with a junkie for 15 years is not comfortable with the fact that her husband is clean, in spite of all the fantasies and the idealizations given . . . If she doesn’t use drugs then this is even more so, ‘cause listen, 15 years the man is in prison [in and out] she runs the household. Hell . . . a junkie that all of a sudden is clean has demands, wishes, and desires, he wants to come and run the show, he wants to have a say . . . and most of the wives do not accept this . . . lots of women who are married to drug addicts, you tell them come with me to treatment, I got out [of prison], I have changed, you don’t know me, I went to treatment . . . [so they say] ‘the problem is not mine, the problem is yours . . . she doesn’t even think that maybe she has a bit of a mental problem if she lived with a junkie for 15 years, she doesn’t even think that is a problem. (Participant, aged 30)
Such difficulties lead to disagreements and conflicts, which, in turn, create pressure on the recovering addict. Hence, many of those interviewed in this study found them once again using drugs as a way of coping with problems they faced at home with their spouse, here is a typical response:
The pressure at home from my wife to go and find a job, all of that drove me crazy. I couldn’t listen to people talking to me at all, it stressed me. So one day I bought some dope and sat down and used it, after that I didn’t care any more . . .. (Participant, aged 33)
32
3
There Is No Place Like Home
Lack of Trust Of course, the spousal reactions were not unexpected. Certainly past experience had shown them that addicts could not be trusted, as they kept going back to their old habits, and, as a result, the family and close friends had no patience with empty promises (see Cheung & Cheung, 2000). The typical zigzag between addiction and non-addiction, crime and non-crime often results in a breakdown in confidence in the recovering addict’s ability “to discern between legitimate and illegitimate claims to personal reform” (Maruna, 2001, p. 156). Similarly, the lack of faith the family has in the recovering addict can negatively impact the support provided once the addict is released from prison: My wife, she always had this slogan she used to say: ‘A crooked tree does not become straight’. It was hard for her to trust me. Listen, I’m going in and out of prison for 20 years and each time I tell her I will get out and things will be okay . . . and then I always go back [to prison], so, she lost faith in me . . . My wife, the moment I had no daily routine, she did not believe in any thing. She knew it was just a matter of time [till I would re-offend, and use drugs again]. (Participant, aged 47)
Overall, about 75% of interviewees in this study experienced some level of difficulty in reuniting with their family. Usually such difficulties led to the elevation of the stress experienced by the recovering addicts. Such stress can be implicated in the relapse to drug abuse as well as to further criminal involvement. For those who managed to stay “clean,” such conditions made their reintegration experience more difficult and, in many cases, caused additional fractures within the family life. Those who did make it either sought family consultation or decided to start a new life by breaking from what they defined as “unhealthy relationships.”
Discussion and Summary When a prisoner who participated in a drug treatment program inside the prison is released, the world outside is different for him. After a long period of incarceration and years of drug use, the world as he knew it no longer exists. Often the recovering addict, who is also an ex-inmate, reunites with family members, expecting them to give him the support he needs and help him to rebuild his life.
Discussion and Summary
33
Studies that have examined family support in mental patients who have undergone rehabilitation show that the family plays a significant role in rehabilitating the mentally ill family member (see e.g., Mannion, Phyllis, Draine, & Draine, 1996). The spouse (in this study, wives) can provide material and emotional support to ex-prisoners and thus to recovering drug addicts. Yet while marriage may provide support and thus reduce crime and drug use by increasing social capital (see Vaux, 1988a, 1988b; Cheung & Cheung, 2000), findings from the qualitative analyses done in this study suggest a different scenario, previously noted by Horwitz, McLaughlin, and White (1998): “The same intimate ties that serve as sources of social support can also be sources of much misery, conflict, and distress” (p. 125).Thus, the family can also be a negative support agent, diminishing social capital. Such findings tend to occur when most family members did not participate in any kind of treatment, and, as a result, were not familiar with the special needs and the recovery processes of the recovering family member. The negative effect increases when the ex-prisoner, who is recovering from an addiction, reunites with his spouse, particularly if she is not a drug addict herself. In such cases, both those who managed to desist from relapsed drug abuse and those who did not, reported high levels of stress that interfered with their rehabilitation. Such increased stress occurred in most cases because of different role expectations, especially when the recovered addict was expected to prove his sincerity immediately by finding a job and providing for the family. Expectations of this nature may sometimes be very difficult for the recovering addict to comply with, as he has experienced changes in selfperception and, in many cases, maintains his low self-esteem. This may be well captured in the words of one of the interviewees who explained he was “. . . like a newborn that was just delivered out of the womb and begins a new life” (Participant age 41). Moreover, in most cases other family members do not participate in any therapeutic program and are unable to provide guidance to him. The situation can worsen if family members have unresolved anger or other issues with the recovering family member. In such cases, they may benefit from participating in treatment, as the results of this study suggest. In addition, family members of the recovered addict often lack faith in the sincerity of the process, based on past experience, which leaves little room for optimism (Cheung & Cheung, 2000). Family members of the addict are familiar with the addiction problem, sometimes even more then the addict himself, and are likely to change their attitude toward him only the ex-addict proves himself over an extended period. Accordingly, in this chapter, the perceived support from the family was low but may reflect the family’s past
34
3
There Is No Place Like Home
experience with the ex-addict and his own lack of trustworthiness (see Beach et al., 1996). According to Cullen (1994), the more support is given to families, the less crime will occur. When considering the type of support to be given to families of recovering addicts who are also ex-prisoners, the support should be in the form of information, emotional support, “family training intervention” (a type of family treatment that includes the client and his spouse), and, if needed, mental health assistance. Such support should be available while the family member is still in prison as this is “a prime opportunity to give attention to destructive familial context” (Klein et al., 2002, p. 95). Imprisonment of a family member frequently serves as an incentive for family members to seek and accept help. While each of these forms of support is important individually, most successful interventions appear to be those that offer more than one type of social support service (Rivara and Farrington inside Cullen, 1994). Although it is necessary for spouses of recovered addicts to participate in such interventions, and in family treatment training intervention in particular, one cannot discount the mechanism of “blaming the others,” as was suggested by Sykes and Matza (1957), as a kind of neutralization technique by the ex-addict. Often recovering addicts who relapse are not willing to take responsibility for their behavior and failure, and they may blame others for not helping them in the process. Such a finding was also noted by Maruna (2001) who reported that both those who had gone back to criminality and those who did not “. . . seem to have a shifting or conflicted sense of responsibility” (p. 34). Whatever the reason is, “it takes two to tango”— the responsibility of the recovered addict cannot be ignored, and neither can the family’s responsibility as an agent of change. The family as a “superpersonality” that has as its essence the interaction of its members needs to be promoted through treatment, additional guidance, and support. As a closed system of social interaction the family is also a great source of influence on its individual members (Waller inside Inglodsby et al., 2004). According to the Family System Theory (FST), immediate members of the family (i.e., spouses and children) who receive the recovered addict after release from incarceration should be advised to take a more active part in the treatment process while the addict is still in prison; one person’s change needs to be accompanied by the entire system changing, as they are, in the words of Waller (inside Inglodsby et al., 2004), an “arena of interacting personalities.” Additionally, they recommend family intervention for both inmates and their families that will aim to strengthen external social support networks while enhancing the communication within the
Discussion and Summary
35
family and among family members. Klein et al. (2002) made a similar recommendation. In conclusion, drug treatment programs are known to play a large role in reducing future drug abuse, and, thereby, further criminal involvement. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the entire context that surrounds the individual under treatment, and mainly the most significant agent of them all, the family. The family is an important factor in the process of becoming an addict and thus is essential to the understanding and dealing with rehabilitation and reintegration. In this chapter, we examined the family role in the process of rehabilitation and reintegration. Being the primary socialization agent, and one of the most important structures, in a society, the family is one of the most efficient informal control agents. Though the family can provide positive support, if not supported and guided correctly, it can also lead to conflicts with the exaddict and lead to his relapse. After detoxification treatment, interventions should probably focus less on changing the offender as a drug addict and more on providing support for those who make initial efforts to change (see Marlatt and Gordon inside Maruna, 2001, p. 114), and on giving support to their families. Future studies should examine the effect of family intervention on the rehabilitation process and in reducing stress as a result of perceived role expectation by the client and his spouse. Such interventions should begin during the last stages of the in-prison treatment and follow the recovered addict during the transition from prison to the community, while also providing follow-up and booster sessions in the few months following the release. Such an examination should focus on social support processes in marriage in order to develop models that clarify important aspects of social support given by the family and spouse to recovered addicts who are also released prisoners.
Chapter 4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
With prison population worldwide reaching new peaks, early release may become a necessity for communities, which will then face massive numbers of released inmates returning home. For many released inmates, returning home after completing their sentence is not easy. The task becomes even harder for recovering drug addicts who participated in treatment while incarcerated and are returning home as drug-free individuals. Past studies have demonstrated that drug treatment in correctional settings is effective in reducing recidivism rates. According to Lipton (1995) and Taxman (1998) the effectiveness of drug treatment is enhanced when offenders are also treated in the community after release from jail or prison programs. Additionally, research on treatment in conjunction with supervision and immediate sanctions for violation of supervision conditions proved to have critical components of an effective treatment delivery system (Taxman, 1998). For example, in a three-year outcome evaluation, Wexler et al. (1999) examined the Amity in-prison treatment community (TC) in conjunction with community after-care. Their results show that only 27% of those participating in TC followed by community programs returned to custody in comparison to 75% of the control group (those not supervised after completion of the prison-based program). Similar findings in Delaware by Martin et al. (1999) showed significantly lower recidivism and drug relapse among those participating in both prison-based TC and after-care release. Other studies that examined prison-based treatment in conjunction with community after-care support the notion that community supervision and after-care after release are crucial factors in reducing recidivism and future drug use rates (Knight, Simpson, & Hiller, 1999; Pearson & Lipton, Some of the ideas in this chapter were presented in an early shorter version of this chapter published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 43–56, in 2009. L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_4,
C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
37
38
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
1999; Simpson et al., 1999a). Taking into consideration the above findings, this study aims to examine released offenders’ perception on community after-care and supervision. Specifically, the study seeks to gain insight into the importance given, by offenders who received drug treatment while incarcerated, to community after-care and supervision. Drug offenders who entered recovery from their addiction while incarcerated can be compared, when they rejoin the community, to new immigrants that have just arrived in a foreign land. Learning even the simplest routines as if they were new recovered drug addicts experience bewilderment, confusion, and as a result, high levels of stress. Such stress may be exacerbated by difficulties in finding housing, survival until employment is found, stresses of employment itself, and lack of appropriate support. After years of isolation from the outside world, these stressors can confound newly released inmates, and inhibit or destroy the progress of recovering drug addicts. Stress is magnified during early stages of re-entry, and therefore having supervision and support is essential in maintaining the momentum gained by the program received while on the inside. According to Taxman, Young, Byrne, Holsinger, & Anspach (2003) there is a pressing need for transitional housing and having a “companion” to accompany the offender when he or she departs from the transitional housing during the day. Taxman and her colleagues (2003) examined the benefits of this type of support in a study founded by the department of justice under what is known as the “experiment in the Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI).” In that specific report, offenders’ views of reentry were examined, and particularly in regard to their “survival needs” and social and institutional factors that affect reintegration. Taxman further suggests that the supervision and reentry process must support the psychological needs of the offender and must promote accountability for his or her actions (Taxman, 2002).
Control and Supervision According to early control theoreticians, ideas of criminal conduct are driven by each individual’s life experience, and it is assumed that individuals will not commit crimes unless they were exposed to similar negative attitudes and behaviors manifested in their immediate social surrounding and by their peers (see, for example, Matza, 1964; Hirschi, 1969; Akers, 1977). This notion of social environment as generating criminal behavior is crucial to our understanding of the need for supervision. The practice of Intensive Supervision (IS) (as introduced by Deschenes, Turner, & Petersilia, 1995) is one possible way of achieving this goal of supervising
Control and Supervision
39
offenders in various risk levels, as it provides for more face-to-face contact with the supervising agent, increased drug tests, and possible house arrest (Deschenes et al., 1995). In jurisdictions where parole failures are decreasing, researchers and practitioners are attributing the decline to higher levels of supervision (Austin, 2001). However, other studies have found contradictory evidence to the use of intensive supervision. In fact, both Mackenzie (2000) and Sherman et al. (1997) found intensive supervision to be ineffective. However, Taxman (2002) states that most recent evaluations of correctional intervention or supervision programs have been very poorly executed and thus may not be adequate to determine the effectiveness of such programs. However, a discussion about supervision encompassing preventive and supportive measures remains relevant to any discussion that aims to deal with released inmates, especially those who participated in prison-based drug treatment programs and are released to the community as recovering drug addicts. Research has shown that offenders can successfully reintegrate back into society if given the right tools. A “seamless system”—sometimes referred to as a continuum of care—is a systematic process that addresses the needs of both the criminal justice system and the offenders by providing frequent supervision with coerced treatment. The seamless system can be initiated immediately after release on parole, and in many cases upon commencing probation, and provides the individual with steady guidance that may aid in reducing recidivism (Taxman, 1998). Simpson and his colleagues (1999b) state that long-term effectiveness is possible and can be obtained when there is a continuum of services in the community. Additionally, research has shown a decrease in recidivism and drug use among individuals who received drug treatment after release from incarceration when treatment was also provided during the prison term (Deschenes et al., 1995; Young, Fluellen, & Belenko, 2004; Chanhatasilpa, Mackenzie, & Hickman, 2000). Such findings lead many to believe that “more is better” when it comes to increased contacts with offenders, increased drug tests, and more comprehensive surveillance (e.g., ankle monitors and house arrest). Contacts are the framework of supervision and provide a way to monitor the offender in the community (Taxman, 2002). Contacts with the offenders are considered an extremely important aspect of supervision and the number of contacts deemed appropriate is determined based on the risk of the offender (ibid). Studies conducted on the intensity and length of supervision indicates that offenders who suffered from substance abuse should spend between 12 and 24 months under supervision or treatment (Lipton, 1995; Taxman, Young, & Byrne, 2003). However, it is not only the amount of time being supervised that is important, it is the dosage—the type, length
40
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
and intensity—of treatment the individual receives that has the most cogent effect (Condelli & Hubbard, 1994). Interestingly, Hall, Evans, and Smith (1989) found that correctional officers and criminal court judges share an overall support for increased control, using electronic monitoring, to monitor offenders under supervision in the community. Further, Deschenes et al. (1995) found that offenders on Intensive Supervision were characterized as being more likely to actively search for jobs, had more face-to-face contacts with their supervising agent, underwent increased drug tests, and were more likely to be involved in at least one “constructive activity” in a one-year follow-up. Moreover, Seiter and Kadela (2003) stated that the existence of parole and parole considerations could create an incentive for good behavior and program participation. They further argue that the process can be beneficial even if it is not truly voluntary. However, many studies that focused on increased supervision programs such as Intensive Supervision do not provide support for their ability to reduce recidivism. The differing results of the studies have incited a debate over the benefits of coerced and intensive supervision. Mackenzie (2000) who focused on Intensive Supervision found that increased contacts did not produce better outcomes. Similarly, Petersilia and Turner (1993) evaluated 14 sites that utilized the Intensive Supervision approach and found no difference in re-arrest rates between routine probationers (controls) and those individuals who received intensive supervision (also see Sherman et al., 1997). On the other hand, some studies provide support for the use of coercive treatment, an important component of the seamless system—described earlier—that combines supervision with coerced treatment. For example, Collins and Allison (1983) who examined retention rates among outpatient versus residential clients found higher retention rates to be associated with closer supervision. Similarly, Farbaee, Prendergast, and Douglas (1998) conducted an overview of 11 studies regarding the effectiveness of various levels of coerced treatment; they concluded that coerced treatment is an effective method with better retention rates and better outcomes. Examining the relationship of legal coercion and readiness to change (i.e., motivation) among 295 adults with alcohol and other drug problems, Gregoire and Burke (2004) found those individuals who were legally coerced into treatment to be over three times more likely to engage in recovery-oriented behavior. Taxman (1998) asserts that there is a common myth that those individuals who volunteer for treatment are more motivated to change. However, research has never substantiated this myth. Interestingly, she states that most individuals afflicted with addiction do not volunteer for treatment; rather some factor prompts the treatment. Taxman calls these “coercive factors” and posits that they provide a driving force to begin treatment, but do not
Continuum of Treatment and Outside Supervision After Release
41
necessarily provide continuing pressure to stay in treatment. It is important to note that coerced individuals may have lower levels of motivation and thus may be reluctant to take active part in the process. This was also supported by Hough (2002), who examined treatment providers. In this study, he argues that working with individuals sanctioned to treatment is ineffective, due to low levels of motivation (ibid.). Morris (1974) avowed that correctional treatment was indeed important, but would not be effective if perceived as coercive. Yet, some research has shown that individuals mandated to treatment are motivated to modify their behaviors. While there is a paucity of research focusing explicitly on the use of coercive treatment, studies like those of Gregoire and Burke (2004), and Farbaee et al. (1998), described earlier provide support for its use. However, future studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of coercive treatment on rehabilitation. Taxman et al. (2003) made an important point when stating that offenders do not just benefit from supervision. In their research on offender’s views of reentry, they discovered that assessment of needs and assistance in obtaining those needs (i.e., transitional housing, employment, and food) is crucial in keeping offenders from “falling off the wagon.” Other researchers have concluded similarly. Offenders often state a need for assistance in finding employment opportunities (Hanrahan, Gibbs, & Zimmerman, 2005; LaVigne & Kachnowski, 2005). La Vigne and Kachnowski (2005) found that 93% of respondents (n=676) felt that finding a job after release was important. Further 87% expressed a need for help or a lot of help in finding employment. Hanrahan et al. (2005) found similar concerns among participants in their study.
Continuum of Treatment and Outside Supervision After Release While some studies have shown that intensive supervision is no more effective in reducing recidivism than regular/orthodox supervision (Mackenzie, 2000; Sherman et al., 1997), others provide an opposing view. As mentioned previously studies on coerced treatment argued that coercion might be effective in helping transform offending behaviors (Gregoire & Burke, 2004; Farabaee et al., 1998). Consequently, further research aimed at understanding these discrepancies is needed to advance the field. The current chapter aims to further the notion that offenders do understand their need for monitoring and supervision. The data consistently identifies this need and shows that ex-offenders benefited from being monitored in the community.
42
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
Criminal justice practitioners often adopt “paternalistic” rehabilitation approaches, working under the assumption that “the professionals” are better equipped to assess and evaluate offenders’ needs than the offenders themselves. The overriding assumption is that offenders are somewhat irrational and unaware of their own condition. Consequently, the purpose of this chapter, in alignment with the aims of the book, is to examine the perspectives of the inmates themselves concerning their need of supervision and continuum of treatment. This is extremely important because being able to identify a need is one of the most significant steps toward recovery and rehabilitation (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1986). In fact, identifying a need is the first stage toward achieving change, in what Prochaska and DiClemente (1986) call the “pre-contemplation stage.” In that regard, findings presented in this chapter can provide implications about the role of motivation in altering behavior. Due to conflicting evidence, the aim of this chapter is to add insight on released offenders’ perceptions of the importance of after-release supervision to the rehabilitation and reintegration process. Consequently, we will focus on understanding the importance given to community after-care and supervision by offenders who received drug treatment while incarcerated. Participants in this study identified the need for supervision after release, and supervision in the community as part of a support network, more than 58 times, creating nine different categories, which are approximately third (33%) of all extracted categories in this study. Extracted categories helped focus the study conclusions on the need for further supervision and continuum of treatment. This chapter focuses on several salient quotes as expressed by participants in this study. According to Kaufman (2000), continuum of treatment and outside supervision after release are critical factors that must be a top priority of every rehabilitation and reintegration program. Accordingly, Kaufman suggests that released inmates who received treatment upon release, and who were characterized by a high level of motivation, enjoyed significantly lower tendencies of relapse in comparison to those who did not participate in such after-release treatment programs (Kaufman, 2000). Further support was found by Kaufman (1999) in an early study that examined the effect of continuum of treatment on recovered drug addicts that participated in a “Twelve-Step” program. Kaufman’s (2000) study demonstrated that those who were engaged in the twelve-step self-help groups after detoxification were more successful then others in maintaining their abstinence. Moreover, Simpson et al. (1999) found long term effectiveness of prison-based treatment could be obtained when there is a continued condition of integrated supervision in the community. According to Taxman, such post-prison services in the community provide the recovered drug addict with steady
Community Supervision—Incentive or a Leash?
43
guidance and less bewilderment (Taxman, 1998). Similarly, all participants in the present study agreed, with no exception and regardless of their success in rehabilitating their lives that their release from prison should be on the condition that they participate in a continuum of treatment and supervision. Further, many participants believed it would be better if such conditions replaced early release (i.e., parole or as known in Israel “one third on good behavior”), as the first few months are characterized by high levels of disorientation, as noted by these two participants: As an ex-drug addict with no program or routine, no nothing, you can not expect too much. (Participant, age 33) The first few months are the most difficult ones . . .. If you manage to overcome the social stress then all the rest will follow. (Participant, age 40)
Such acknowledgment of the need to be supervised by the released offenders should be addressed in future policies and discharge plans, as will be discussed again in Chapter 9 and 10.
Community Supervision—Incentive or a Leash? The existence of community supervision, and parole in particular, was argued to be an incentive for good behavior and program participation, even if it was a coerced one (Seiter & Kadela, 2003). Similarly, participants in the present study indicated and emphasized the importance of such coerced supervision upon release, as stated by these four participants: I believe that 80%–90% do well when a sword [is hanging] above their heads. When I don’t have a police-officer looking for me, then I’m free, I’m big . . . I did not sign a treatment contract and I am sorry for that. This is one of the things that can help a person succeed . . .. If someone tells me that for a year I have to go somewhere to sign in and give a urine test, and if I don’t then I’m going back to prison . . . fear of going back will do its thing . . .. (Participant, age 47) I wanted to have supervision, ‘cause it’s a leash that is tied around my neck automatically. A leash around the neck lets a person feel that he needs to be careful, you see, he knows that he has a red light, but if there is no supervision, I have no red light, no yellow light and not even a green light [I do whatever I want] . . .. The moment I have a rope around my neck it really helps, and it helped! It made lots of people more careful on the outside, and to think more if it is worth it or not, cost and benefit. (Participant, age 34)
44
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
I, my thoughts, and the thoughts of every drug addict, love to run, love to rebel. If these thoughts are interfering inside my head, that’s it, I lose control, but [when you] know there are urine samples, that you have something that is being held over your head, you try to control yourself . . .. (Participant, age 33) I think it really helped me, that they conditioned my release with urine samples and that I had to be in touch with the IPRA (Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority). ‘Cause first of all, it’s some kind of routine, there isn’t a person who doesn’t need a routine after he is released from prison, it simply isn’t possible. When you get out [of prison] your internal police-officer is not that strong, in my opinion. It is good to know you have some kind of a routine, also for your self-confidence . . . I advise to all of those who can, to go to a hostel [halfway house], and if not a hostel, than to go to someplace where they take urine tests, just so he will be attached [connected and supervised]. (Participant, age 45)
Indeed, other studies support the fact that intensive supervision does help in encouraging individuals to search for employment and to be more involved with “constructive activity” (Deschenes et al., 1995). For example, in a study conducted by Hanrahan et al. (2005), on the perspective of young adult offenders in Pennsylvania, one of the offenders said: I could have slid back into the things that I used to do. There was somebody always looking over my shoulder. I always got to look back. I think it [the supervision] was helpful. (Inside Hanrahan et al., 2005, p. 263)
Moreover, research conducted in previous years suggests that offenders should spend between one and two years after release under supervision or treatment (Lipton, 1995; Taxman et al., 2003). Likewise, participants in the present study were asked about the length of time they think is appropriate for them to be supervised after release. One of the participants articulated this need saying, “. . . you take a year or two, it’s not a short period, even a year is not a short period . . . [but you must understand that] an addict is for life . . .” (Participant, age 39). Overall, all participants in the present study acknowledged the year to two-year time period as an essential re-adjustment frame, as exemplified by these two participants’ statements: After being in prison and leaving, we [inmates] must have some sort of program for at least a year or two, but minimum one year, because during this year you just begin to realize what is going on with you on the outside. (Participant, age 26)
Community Supervision—Incentive or a Leash?
45
. . . more intensive setting/ program, that will provide consistency and keep you, at least at the beginning, one year at minimum, this is critical, oh boy this is a very critical year. (Participant, age 39)
It is important to acknowledge that a supervisory approach of “the more the better” in terms of supervision does not always have a positive effect on rehabilitation and reintegration: it may exchange one dependency with another and thus may block the opportunity to truly start a new life (see Shoham et al., 2006). Nevertheless, similar to other previous studies, findings from the present study support the notion that supervision after release is highly desirable. Consequently, more then 60% of the participants in the present study advocated for post-release supervision. However, the merit of this study is that the necessity was supported by released and recovered drug offenders themselves, which is different from many other studies that used a somewhat paternalistic approach in examining the benefits of supervision in terms of recidivism and employment. Moreover, the present study supplements existing literature by acknowledging that the clients of the system do think that supervision is an important and essential part of their reintegration process. In that regard, findings from the present study joins previous studies that indicated drug offenders to be supportive of community supervision (Nelson, Dees, & Allen, 1999; Taxman et al., 2003). Hanrahan et al. (2005) also presented similar findings, based on interviews they conducted, reporting that parolees had little confidence in their ability to make it on their own once released. Participants in the present study agreed that being supervised in the community after release, along with continuum of treatment, were essential for successful rehabilitation. This supervision and continuum of treatment become necessary after spending years behind bars, in addition to years of abusing drugs, which make it difficult for released prisoners to face everyday challenges and hardships. Of the approximately 51% of the sample participants who returned to abuse drugs and were reincarcerated, nearly all were characterized by lack of treatment continuance, and/or lack of supervision. Additionally, as implied from the interviews, most of the reincarcerated participants can be described as people with very low level of self/personal control, characterized by Reckless (1961) in his “Containment Theory” as having a lower level of “inner containment.” Lack of inner containment is comprised, among other things, of poor judgment, a weak ego, and poorly developed conscience. These criteria are particularly important, as they are fully supported by the interviews, and corroborate our position that released offenders who are also recovering drug addicts cannot assume a normal functioning role without proper guidance and supervision. This, lack of inner containment, in many ways, may be interpreted as a
46
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
fundamental personality failure self-identified by the participants in this study. Consequently, when discussing control theory it is wrong to separate the discussion of “personal control” as argued by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), from a wider discussion on social “external control” as presented by Nagin and Paternoster (1994). One explains the other, and even more so, one cannot exist without the other. In the bond theory presented by Hirschi (1969, p. 18), external control helps in shaping personal mechanisms of control, by a person’s quality of attachment—the extent to which a person is attached to others. In that regard, Reckless’ (1961b), containment theory is in a way a synthesis of “personal” and “external” control. Reckless discusses outer containment, or social control, as the first “defense mechanism” protecting the individual against external threats that may trigger criminal behavior, while inner containment is the self/personal control that is in many ways a by-product of an already developed solid identity shaped by attachment to others.
Discussion and Summary Most subjects, more than sixty percent of participants interviewed for this study, testified that treatment continuum and supervision in the community upon release is essential in their perception of what will help them succeed in while reintegrating to the normative society. Moreover, mandating continuum of treatment and supervision in the community during the first year after release is generally highly valued by recovering addicts who experienced prison-based treatment. Such a continuum of care will provide recovered drug offenders with what Taxman (1998) calls a “seamless system” that provides a systematic process to address the needs of both the criminal justice system and the offenders. The first year after release is the hardest and most crucial year in the reintegration process, especially for recovering drug addicts who are also ex-prisoners. Accordingly, the various formal social support networks, as well as other supervision agencies, have a major central role in the reintegration process. A continuum of treatment and supervision also received support in other studies (Chanhatasilpa et al., 2000; Deschenes et al., 1995; Kaufman, 1999, 2000; Simpson et al., 1999; Taxman, 1998; Young et al., 2004). As a result, the debate presented in the literature review of this article regarding the perceived need for after-release supervision was upheld by the findings of this study, adding support to the notion that after-release supervision is essential. Such a seamless approach is crucial to the process of reintegration, not only in terms of the treatment per se, but more importantly due to the supervision it provides. Moreover, continuum of
Discussion and Summary
47
treatment along with supervision was found to have a positive affect on individuals’ behavior (see Cullen, 1994; Hawkins et al., 1995). Furthermore, it is important to note that such a continuum of treatment should be done seamlessly, and immediately upon release, meaning from “door to door.” In other words, released offenders must report to a pre-assigned agency on the same day of release, as it is known that for most released prisoners, and especially recovered drug offenders, the first few hours may be the critical ones (see Tichman, 1995). Once it was established that continuum of treatment and supervision are essential to the reintegration process, participants were asked to evaluate the length of time they thought was appropriate for their continuum of treatment and supervision. Many of the participants in this study believed that a length of at least one year is critical to a successful reintegration. During the first year of their release, inmates learn to deal with everyday problems as drugfree individuals. Additionally, during the first year it is possible that they will establish some orientation toward the future, while acquiring new social and professional skills that might be of great benefit toward their future lives. Moreover, a period of one year is usually the basic requirement for many available therapeutic settings on the outside community. The first year is also known to be the critical year in terms of the individual’s mental, social, and financial reorganization. Studies have shown that released inmates who managed to stay out of trouble during the first year after their release are characterized by lower rates of recidivism (Hassin, 1978; Shoham et al., 2006). From these results, it can be seen that the availability of formal social support mechanisms are highly important in the reintegration process. Continuous rehabilitation that fosters a continuum of treatment with community supervision is highly desirable and recommended. Consequently, the key conclusion from this chapter is that inmates need direction before release to available treatment and supervision options. More importantly, inmates must be introduced to the importance of such a continuum, while pinpointing the risks that are threatening the reintegration process within the first year after release. Between 1995 and year-end 2005, the Israeli Prison System released about 25,000 inmates early. However, according to Israeli Prison System records (2006), the percentage of inmates being released early with conditions of community supervision has decreased by more then 50%, while about 30% of inmates in 1995 were conditionally released, in 2005 the number of inmates to be conditionally released dropped to 12.8%. Consequently, the Israeli prison population is on the rise (almost doubling from 1995 to year-end 2005), similar to the trend in the United States and in many
48
4
Sense of Direction—The Need for Supervision
other western countries. Although different from the trends in the United States—an increase of 2.3% in the number of parolees between 2005 and 2006—there are still states that abolished their parole practices. This fact, in conjunction with findings from the interviews of this study, may raise an important question that needs to be acknowledged: Why is it that the community prefers inmates to “max out” rather then release them on parole, knowing that parole may benefit inmates’ rehabilitation and reintegration process? This question should not be, and cannot be, limited just to one country, but is a question that correctional administrators, reentry advocates, and policy makers around the world should consider. Supervision as a formal means of social control and support for substance abusers is indeed a crucial factor that affects recidivism rates, as well as success rates. However, community supervision may also have a “backfire-effect,” as can be seen in the increase of technical violations that result in increasing incarceration rates. In fact, in a recent Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009, Williamson (2009) argued that many inmates choose not be released on parole supervision, but to “Max out.” Such a phenomenon has much broader implications on reintegration, but may also be viewed as motivation-related characteristic. Suggesting that inmates do not wish to be accountable for their wrong behavior implies that they are not yet ready for change. For that reason it is crucial to discuss another fundamental factor—motivation to change—that affects the individual on his journey to free his life from a life of a substance abuser. The next chapter discusses the inmates’ perception of motivation and the way in which motivation is perceived, by them, as a crucial element in the rehabilitation and reintegration process.
Chapter 5
What Do I Need to Succeed? Perception of Motivation and Its Role in the Reintegration Process
Internal motivations to abstain from future drug use and to refrain from further criminal activity are major components in changing individual behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Prochaska & Diclemente, 1985), and in particular when changing drug-addictive behavior. According to Ryan (1995), lack of motivation is one of the most frequently cited reasons for relapse and negative treatment outcomes. Prior studies have explored the role of intrinsic motivation to abstain from further drug use on treatment outcomes (Maisto, Carey, & Bradizza, 1999) and its impact on future criminal involvement. Nevertheless, few studies have examined such impact on outcomes for clients participating in a drug treatment program under a seamless treatment rationale (supervision with treatment, Taxman, 1998). In this chapter we will elaborate and expand on current understanding of the importance of motivation on treatment retention and successful rehabilitation, using the perceptions of inmates participating in a prison-based therapeutic community. However, such perceptions may also be held by other (non-incarcerated) substance abusers. Specifically, the current chapter examines perceptions of the importance of motivation to the rehabilitation and reintegration process. According to Schwarzer (2001), only individuals who become aware that their lifestyle puts them at risk may make a deliberate decision to refrain from risky behavior, such as drug use (also see Conner & Norman, 1996; Schwarzer, 1992; Weinstein, 1993). Plotnikoff and Nigginbotham (2002) stated that in order for a behavioral change to occur, the individual must
Some of the ideas in this chapter were presented under a similar title in an early version of this chapter that was accepted for publication at the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 2009. The manuscript was first published on March 19, 2009, and is available online at http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/ rapidpdf/0306624X09333377v1 L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_5, 49 C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
50
5 What Do I Need to Succeed?
first estimate the severity of the problem and only then estimate the danger that might arise from avoiding the problem. Prochaska and DiClemente (1986) demonstrated that motivation is a critical variable between the pre-contemplation and contemplation stage, where an individual becomes invested in altering his behavior. Such findings clearly demonstrate the importance of motivation in the various stages of any treatment process that aims to change behavior. Motivation to achieve behavioral change is a crucial factor in predicting the ability of drug addicts to change their addictive behaviors. In this chapter “motivation” is defined as the intentions, desires, goals, and needs that determine behavior. The desired behavior is abstinence from drugs and conformity to a normative non-criminal lifestyle. Bandura (1977) claimed that motivation could be generated as a result of cognitive representations of future outcomes, which are developed from environmental events. Schwarzer (2001) argued that such change in behavioral patterns has two separate processes: the motivation to change and the will to change. These two processes, he claimed, can only be predicted by self-efficacy, which is “the only predictor that seems to be equally important in the two processes” (ibid: 47). Other studies have also suggested that motivation and self-efficacy may have a positive linear pattern of association (Brown & Inouye, 1978; Lent, Brown & Larkin, 1984 in Miller & Carlyle, 1992). Similarly, Maruna (2001) argued that in order for offenders to maintain abstinence from drug use and criminal activity, they need to make sense of their lives. Differently put, they need to account for and understand their criminal pasts and understand why they are now “not like that anymore” (ibid: 7).
Motivation for Change and Self-Efficacy Bandura (1977) introduced self-efficacy theory, in which he proposed that a common cognitive mechanism could explain and predict the behavioral changes achieved by different modes of treatment (see Garth, Wilkinson, & Poulos 1995). Self-efficacy was defined by Bandura (1977) as “personal belief that an individual possesses in his/her ability to execute certain behavior that will in turn produce a particular result” (inside Miller & Carlyle, 1992, p. 202). Support for self-efficacy theory was provided by various studies examining different issues in the behavioral domain, such as willingness to participate in prison-based educational programs (Batchelder & Douglas,
Motivation for Change and Self-Efficacy
51
2002), measuring drinking outcomes for alcoholic men (McKay, Masito, & O’Farrel, 1993), as well as other studies (see Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Burling, Reilly, Moltzen, & Ziff, 1989; El-Bassel, Ivanoff, Schilling, Borne, & Louisa, 1997; Laws, 1999; Lee, 1984; O’Leary, 1985). Moreover, studies have shown that desisting from crime and drug abuse is correlated socially, psychologically, and cognitively (Hans, 2002; Gideon, 2002; Leibrich, 1993; McKay & Weiss, 2001; Sadowski, Long, & Jenkins, 1992; Terry & Mitchell, 2001). Ortmann (2000), when examining a prisonbased social therapy program in Germany, found that the therapy itself had little to do with reduction of recidivism, even when therapy was completed. Using a controlled experimental design, Ortmann concludes that positive outcomes may be best explained by the “offender’s personality” (Ibid: 229). In a corresponding example, Hans (2002) showed that high motivation at baseline was linked to successful smoking abstinence. McKay and Weiss (2001) found that stronger motivation and coping at baseline were found to have better predictive ability for alcohol and substance use outcomes and better progress while in treatment. In addition, looking at high motivation at baseline and during treatment is also an important factor in treatment retention (Simoneau & Bergeron, 2003). According to Miller and Sanchez (1994), an important shift in thinking and in examining motivation suggests that “motivation is not simply a characteristic of the individual, but rather the product of interpersonal exchanges” (p. 58). In other words, success of treatment is not solely dependent on the motivation of the individual who enters treatment but also strongly associated with “environmental and by the skills and attributes of the therapist” (Miller & Sanchez, 1994, p. 59). Specifically, a person’s level of motivation is determined not by this person’s individual strength but by external situations and by the people with whom this individual interacts. “This means that motivation is better understood as a characteristic of environments and relationships than as a trait of individuals” (Miller & Sanchez, 1994, p. 59). Similarly, Simoneau and Bergeron (2003) argued that the settings and the people someone interacts with both affect motivation. According to Ryan (1995), most human behaviors are not intrinsically motivated. However, developing and maintaining such behaviors are often required for normative socialization and integration of the individual to his community. Moreover, individuals tend to adapt to their environment as any other organism would. This provides them with the possibility of integrating external contingencies (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Furthermore, we might assume that receiving treatment as an external factor may have an affect on motivation and thus on rehabilitation outcomes.
52
5 What Do I Need to Succeed?
Perceived Self-Efficacy As part of social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is more accurately described as perceived self-efficacy (El-Bassel et al., 1997). Such perceived self-efficacy is the belief that one can exert control over personal motivation, behavior, and social environment (Bandura, 1986). Extensive evidence demonstrates that perceived self-efficacy strongly influences the attainment and maintenance of preventive health behaviors, such as abstaining from smoking, drinking, and engaging in physical activity to prevent cardiovascular diseases (such as coronary heart disease) (Bandura, 1986; Plotnikoff & Nigginbotham, 2002; O’Leary, 1985; Schwarzer, 2001). Other studies have found that self-efficacy plays a significant role in adolescent drug addiction desistance (Irvin & Maag, 1993). Yet research on the association between self-efficacy and motivation among competitive athletes did not find as strong an association as expected (Miller & Carlyle, 1992). Given the above-described dynamics influencing individual success in overcoming addiction, it is important to examine the contribution of internal motivation as a valuable factor that might affect treatment outcomes, as well as rehabilitation, while trying to explain desistance from crime and drug use. This is especially true when taking into consideration the fact that many crimes are drug related (Blankenship, Dansereau, & Simpson, 1999; Brochu, Douyon, & Normand, 1995; Collison, 1996; Tonry & Wilson, 1990; Valdez, Yin, & Kaplan, 1997). Consequently, this chapter explores inmates’ perceptions of the importance of motivation on the rehabilitation and reintegration process.
The Contemplation Stage: Sincere Motivation As mentioned in the above literature review, motivation is a key factor for success for those who participate in treatment program, as well as during the entire rehabilitation process. Motivation includes the willingness to open up to treatment, comply with it, and remain in it until the end. Evidence from this present study, as well as from other studies such as Miller’s (1985) on alcoholism, and the many studies done on substance abusing inmates (see Wexler, Prendergast, & Melnick, 2004, and Simpson et al., 1999 for general discussion on results of prison-based drug treatment), shows that certain individuals were able to pull themselves out of drug use while others remained addicted, regardless of participating in the same program and seeing the same therapists. In other words, given the same therapeutic
Motivation for Change and Self-Efficacy
53
conditions, there were those who succeeded and those who failed and had further abuse. For this reason, we cannot judge therapists for successes and/or failures. A different level of motivation was the key in distinguishing those who succeeded from those who failed. Participants in this present study who recovered from their addiction were successful, because they did everything in their power to assimilate into the normative community. Those who failed where characterized by a “Retreatist” type of personality—characterized by withdrawing from society through acts of substance-abusing and addiction (Merton, 1957)—and thus lacked the will and maturity to improve their lives. Even among those participants who failed and returned to future incarceration, lack of motivation was identified as the main reason for their failure, as noted by these two participants: In every process [treatment], if it’s not coming from me, it’s not worth it. You can provide me with the top of the line program, but it ain’t worth a dime if it’s not coming from me, if I don’t want to. I think that if a man wants to [get clean] then he doesn’t need any program, if he really wants to, everything is a matter of practicality, how much you want to . . .. (Participant, age 34) See, if the inmate does not have a strong will and cannot make an honest decision, but not weak as margarine [what the participant meant to say was: ‘to do whatever it takes’], the decision to do what ever it takes, no matter how much you will help him, it’s a waste of time, it will not work . . . if there are no aspirations, and from the inside [points to his heart] the fire and the spirit to fight for my life I will fail again . . .. (Participant, age 21)
Motivation builds through years of addiction and suffering. This is why many times results are more promising for more mature abusers, those who “hit bottom” (Biernacki, 1986; Faupel, 1991; Maruna, 2001), and have suffered enough from their addiction, in addition to the fear of potential punishment (Sommers et al., 1994), as explained by this participant: I decided that I want to quit, ‘cause [during] the period I was using and all the agony that I experienced, prisons and jails I’ve been to . . . I got sick and tired of it. (Participant, age 38)
Additionally, we learn that when participants truly have the motivation to “get clean” and pursue a normative way of life, they need very little help to succeed, as explained by the following participant: I tried to detoxify as a result of a personal decision to rehabilitate myself and my home [family]. I decided that I am cleaning up, waking up in the morning and taking this journey that I have never taken before . . . and I think you can get clean everywhere, it depends what you want. (Participant age 33)
54
5 What Do I Need to Succeed?
Gaining Employment as an Indication of Motivation The issue of motivation is also raised when examining the ability of recovering addicts and ex-prisoners to seek and find employment (employment will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6). Despite the enormous difficulties these individuals experience in finding employment, their uncompromising desire to obtain employment—and their constant searching and applying to jobs, any kind of jobs—became evident several times during the interviews (specifically, this theme appeared in 10 different interviews, which are accounted for in about 26% of the interviews conducted). Those who successfully rehabilitated their lives were not picky about the jobs they took and they were highly motivated to gain legitimate employment, as described by the following participant: Listen, in short, I wanted to get clean, I did not tell stories, I ate a lot of crap, I cleaned hallways in buildings, I knew I had a kid, got no one to help me . . . the point is, I wanted to get clean, I did whatever I could, you understand, I did not feel humiliated in anything that I did, I worked in everything I could lay my hands on, just so that I would really be able to get clean . . . I wasn’t spoiled; what ever I needed to do I did . . . I had a difficult time but I knew what my aim was what I want out of myself and I went for it all the way. (Participant age 39)
A similar experience was discussed by this participant: I worked all the time, in all kinds of jobs, didn’t matter what I worked in as long as I worked, no pampering, I even cleaned restrooms. I never had problems finding a job, because if you want to work you will find [a job] . . . if you are reluctant then you got a problem. (Participant age 35)
Making It “On My Own” Another aspect of motivation was illuminated when participants expressed their will to rehabilitate their lives by themselves without any help from close family, relatives, and friends. Participants in this study expressed their desire to succeed in the rehabilitation process on their own. In other words, they wanted to manage on their own, with no reliance on others, as apparent from these participant quotes: I did my rehabilitation by myself, all my rehabilitation, all the rehabilitation . . . I managed by myself, I did the rehabilitation all by myself. I worked wherever I could . . . I did not wait for anyone to come and help me, I did not
Making It “On My Own”
55
develop a dependency on others to come and help me, I was dependent enough years on substances and decided that from now on I will be independent, I did not wait for anyone’s feedback. (Participant age 39) My aunt told me to leave the hostel [half way house] and that she would open a store for me . . . [I turned her down], no, this is one of the advantages . . . that I don’t owe anyone anything. Like, no one can come and say he gave me something in my new way, that he has a part of my success . . . I wanted to do things by myself. (Participant age 30)
According to participants in the present study, the desire to “make it” on your own is an important step in the rehabilitation process, especially taking into consideration the fact that most of those who abuse substances suffer from financial dependence and chronic idleness. In that regard “making it on your own” represents a critical step toward inmates’ personal independence from others and being accountable for their lives. The inspiration to “make it on your own” is highly important to the recovered addict and symbolizes the beginning of a new way, as described by this participant: Everything on your own, I don’t want someone to pay for my cantina . . . I’m working now, I am doing the ‘way’ [rehabilitating myself], I am to myself, I don’t give myself ‘discounts’ anymore on the way . . . however I make my bed is how I get to sleep on it. (Participant age 40)
A good program cannot be the sole contributor to a recovering addict’s success or failure. This is similar to newcomers who migrated with an intent to succeed, the intent and the motivation is the core element that eases the assimilation and acculturation, as well as the ability of the new member to succeed in his/ her new way. Similarly, the study interviews suggest that level of motivation is perceived by participants themselves as a critical factor in the rehabilitation process, as evidenced by participants’ comments regarding their reintegration back into normative society. Participants in this study frequently implied that if they lacked the motivation to comply with the program offered, the treatment program itself would not be enough. This was the case for participants, in this present study, who claimed they joined the program without “pure motivation,” and saw the program “as a chance to improve the physical conditions of their incarceration experience while ‘doing easier time’” (see Shoham et al., 2006, p. 124 for their explanation and description on those who participated in the treatment during its later stages).
56
5 What Do I Need to Succeed?
Discussion and Summary Multiple studies have shown that motivation has a vital role in successful detoxification and rehabilitation. Motivation is part of the internal control cycle, as described by Reckless (1961a) in his Containment Theory. This is especially true when motivation is being used as an indicator for the addicted individual to plan things for the long term, while overcoming the immediate desire for pleasure and satisfaction (in the case of substance abusers, the substance use itself). Consequently, one must recognize “motivation” as an integral part of the Inner Containment (ibid). Specifically, motivation to abstain from drugs is one of the “defense mechanisms” that protects the individual against internal threats and conflicts that may trigger substance abuse (and thus criminal behavior). Consequently, motivation and self-efficacy are relevant to control theory in general—as they create buffers from negative external influences while reducing stress—by promoting one’s social-capital (see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nagin & Paternoster, 1994; Cheung & Cheung, 2000). An important factor in the detoxification and rehabilitation process that follows it is an honest desire to “get out of the life,” while doing whatever it takes to start a new life. In this study, those who demonstrated such desire had to overcome countless difficulties that jeopardized their rehabilitation in order to be able to present society with proof of their success. To them, the importance of motivation is the most significant factor in the process. A similar argument was presented by Ortmann (2000), concluding that “the only target of therapy available in prison is the offender’s personality” (p. 229), thus suggesting that social therapy, despite considerable effort from the social therapists, is not strongly attributed to the success of the inmate as measured by recidivism. Specifically, it can be argued that it is motivation and the individual/personal strength of the addicted person that helps that individual get out of the life, regardless of the treatment program, as mentioned by Hans (2002), Mckay and Weiss (2001), and Simoneau and Bergeron (2003), who argued that motivation at baseline is an essential factor and key to any treatment or intervention that seeks to alter addictive behavior. However, many times it is the treatment program that may trigger such motivation, while at other times such treatment promotes motivation by being a vehicle that channels the motivation to success. Such an argument is well documented and supported by many public health studies that deal with addictive behavior. For example, the American Medical Association supports treatment for tobacco users even if they lack the initial motivation to quit (Fiore, 2000). In that report Fiore argues that “patients unwilling to try to quit . . . should be provided a brief intervention designed
Discussion and Summary
57
to increase their motivation to quit” (Fiore, 2000, p. 3252). Additional public health studies that examine the role of intervention in promoting motivation also support such argument. For example, Shinitzky and Kub (2001), demonstrate how motivational interviewing successfully promotes motivation for health behavior change. An additional study by Beckham (2007) demonstrates how motivation can be built through intervention in dealing with hazardous drinkers. Another study by Wakefield, Olver, Whitford, and Rosenfeld (2004) also demonstrated how motivation can be promoted by motivational interviewing in treating smokers. One might ask how “true motivation” can be identified, and if it is identifiable, should it be the sole criterion for acceptance to detoxification and rehabilitation programs in prison? While there are no obvious answers to such a question, it is clear that true motivation can be identified many times in retrospect; that is, after the participant proves his sincerity by complying with program requirements. Therefore, it is important that those who manifest the desire to change their lifestyle and get detoxified should get the opportunity to do so. After all, part of the first stage of motivation is identifying the substance abuse as a problem that needs to be treated. As described earlier in this article, human behaviors often are not intrinsically motivated (Ryan, 1995), and thus need the therapeutic environment to ignite, and promote such motivation. Such understanding concurs with the idea of intervention as promoting motivation, espoused in the previous paragraph. It can also be argued that true motivation can be better identified after several weeks have passed, by examining retention and compliance with treatment goals. In conclusion, findings from this chapter add to existing research about the importance of motivation in the rehabilitation process. However, while other studies measure the affect of motivation on treatment retention and treatment outcomes, this study focuses on motivation from a different angle—inmates’ perception of the importance of motivation. Gaining such insight provides a valuable benefit in understanding the process such individuals experience before, during, and after their treatment. Specifically, examining the perceptions of the importance of motivation to the rehabilitation and reintegration process—while abstaining from drugs—findings from this present study demonstrate how participating individuals perceive the importance of both motivation and treatment as a vehicle to their recovery. While not representative, findings from this study may suggest, that participants of this study perceive treatment as necessary and important—in triggering motivation by helping the individual identifying his substanceabuse as a problem—but will have little affect on those who are not motivated.
58
5 What Do I Need to Succeed?
As a final note, findings from this chapter may provide an important first step toward future studies that will examine offenders’ perceptions of the treatment and rehabilitation process and the way in which such individuals identify their own needs. It is important to note that such perspectives are highly important in understanding the difficulties and barriers faced by released offenders and the formal support they need in order to promote motivation. On another level, such studies may also generate a discussion that is different from the one that governs our current practices. Such a discussion should focus more on the needs of the clients while transferring accountability from caregivers to clients.
Chapter 6
Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job
The ability to support ourselves and to provide for our needs is fundamental, and securing legitimate employment is an essential part of any successful assimilation process—in particular, for released offenders who are trying to rehabilitate their lives while reintegrating to the normative, non-criminal society. In fact, obtaining legitimate employment is known to be one of the chief factors in reducing recidivism, while promoting successful reintegration (Uggen, 1999; Uggen, 2000; Uggen & Thompson, 2003), in addition to maintaining and securing normative relations with the community. Engagement in normative employment is crucial as it provides the individual with the ability to provide for himself, family, and also to secure a residence; these, in turn, promote positive self-esteem, which translates into a smoother assimilation in the community as a participating member. According to Petersilia (2003), employment remains one of the most important factors that accelerate reintegration while reducing recidivism (p.40). Employment is also one of the primary reasons for migration and a crucial factor for successful assimilation of newcomers (Boyle, Halfacree, & Robinson, 1998), and a key factor to their social mobility. Additionally, stable employment is often associated with lower levels of criminal involvement and, in turn, higher social stability (Crutchfield & Pitchford, 1997). Unfortunately, employment remains to be one of the main obstacles for released inmates, and those recovering from substance abuse (Bushway, 2006; Lynch, 2006). Consequently, in this chapter we will examine participants’ experiences and difficulties in seeking and securing employment as part of their effort to reintegrate and assimilate in terms of employment.
L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_6, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
59
60
6 Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job
Financial Problems Substance abusers require substantial amounts of money to support their habit. This is in addition to the basic needs of food, shelter, and, in many cases, providing for their family and/or children. Many offenders rely on welfare to support their family and themselves (Kachnwski, 2004). According to Harlow (1998) one in five incarcerated offenders examined was financially dependent on welfare to support his/her children and family. Consequently, many recovered substance abusers in this study accumulated troublesome monetary debts. Similar findings were presented by La-Vinge, Visher, and Castro (2004) who examined a sample of offenders in Chicago Illinois. In fact La-Vinge and her colleagues reported one-fifth of their sample to have monetary debt including debt associated with child support, unpaid fines/restitution/court costs, supervision fees, as well as other costs. Similar results were documented by Kachnwski (2004) in a study that followed inmates from before release and after their release in Baltimore, Maryland. Such debts do not evaporate while they are incarcerated, nor do they diminish. About three-quarters of the Illinois sample reported difficulties in paying off their monetary obligations, and more than two-thirds of that sample also reported it was hard for them to support themselves financially since their release (La-Vinge et al., 2004). As a result many recovering substance abusers are faced with this additional hurdle upon their release. Gaining legitimate employment will thus be interpreted as taking the first step in the right direction, in which the recovering addict takes responsibility for his monetary debts as well. Therefore, it is essential to discuss employment while taking into consideration monetary debts as a crucial aspect of the rehabilitation and reintegration process. Monetary debt can increase the levels of stress the recovering addict needs to cope with (Gideon, 2002), and thus may also affect the ability to seek and find proper employment that will enable him to address such debts. As described above, participants interviewed for the present study had monetary debts as a result of unpaid alimony, unpaid traffic tickets, fines, and unpaid court costs, excess use of credit cards/ consumer debts, and unpaid social-security. Such sources of debt are by no means limited to this study’s specific sample and are shared by substance abusers and convicted offenders across the globe as described by Harlow (1998), La-Vinge et al. (2004), and Kachnwski (2004). In the case of unpaid alimony/child support, credit cards/consumer debts, fines, court expenses, taxes, and social security, such debt only increases due to interest and fines that accrue on the initial charges, and the amounts owed become astronomical; the debts are often described as a millstone that suffocates the spirit and prevents the
The Importance of Employment in the Rehabilitation Process
61
recovering addict from advancing in the rehabilitation and reintegration process. Examining released offenders in Baltimore, Kachnwski (2004) reported that their median debt was estimated at $1,070, with child support/alimony accounting for 90% or more of the debt for many in her sample. Accordingly, there is no wonder why many released offenders attribute financial problems and, in particular, monetary debts, to their relapse, as they generate and perpetuate strain. In fact, participants who fell back to their addiction can be characterized, according to Merton’s (1957) typology of modes of adaptation, as “Retreatists”—people who reject the goals of economic success and the way to achieve it. This was well illustrated by the following participant who was serving a 3-year term for new drug charges: I always had financial debts . . . checks that bounced, I would throw in the garbage, how could I cope with that?! I would throw it in the garbage! I accumulated a debt of more than 30,000 [NIS which is approximately US$7,500] . . . and what could I have done with it?! It only made me more upset, and it pushed me back to the addiction, I said [to myself] here again with the debt and more money that you owe, and they [creditors] come again, I will have my own business, my own house, and they will take it away, I did not want any of this, I did not care . . .. (Participant age 39)
Similar findings were reported by La-Vinge et al. (2004) who reported respondents who owed money were “more than twice as likely to have used drugs or been intoxicated as those who did not owe money after their release” (p. 10). Nevertheless, it was found by Kachnwski (2004) that although majority of the respondents in her study (62%) reported having monetary debts were also significantly more likely to work after their release than those who did not report having monetary debts. In fact, she found that those with monetary debts were employed significantly more—by a month—than those who did not have debts or had minor debts.
The Importance of Employment in the Rehabilitation Process Previous research shows that about two-thirds of convicted offenders were employed prior to their incarceration (Lynch & Sabol, 2001). Employment is a main concern when dealing with reintegration of convicted offenders. Examining incarcerated inmates both in Illinois and Maryland Visher, La-Vinge, and Travis (2004) documented that most of the offenders they interviewed supported the idea of obtaining legitimate employment as one of the most important strategies of successful reintegration. According to
62
6 Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job
Hirschi’s (1969) Social Bond theory “commitment” is one of the four elements of control. Consequently, gaining legitimate employment can indicate commitment. Indeed, Sampson and Laub (1993) argue that employment in itself does not reduce crime, but promotes stability, commitment, and responsibility that may be associated with reducing criminal activity and its consequences. One of the participants in the study who fell back into the drug scene said his problem was . . . emptiness, after you get clean there is nothing for you to do, so your legs take you where ever there is a drug station, drug addicts. (Participant, age 40)
Another participant explained the need for employment in more details saying: If I will work then 90% of my time is covered, I will come home tired, I will be involved in a place where I will have to wake up every morning . . .. (Participant, age 40)
Most incarcerated offenders will tell you during an interview that they are very optimistic about the “. . . prospect of securing and maintaining employment after prison” (Kachnwski, 2004 p. 40). Unfortunately, majority of released offenders experience difficulties gaining such legitimate employment. According to the California Department of Correction (2004), at 1 year post release 60% of offenders are not employed, despite the fact that they would like to be employed. In a study by Nelson et al. (1999) from the Vera institute, the researchers showed that ex-offenders were more concerned with finding employment than with avoiding drugs or illegal activity during the first month after their release. Indeed, one of the participants in the present study describes how bad he felt knowing he is leaving prison with no planned routine: “I got no routine, I had no routine, I got out—all scattered no routine” (Participant, age 52). This may be due to the fact that many employers are more likely to hire low skilled or welfare recipients over ex-offenders. Actually, Holzer (1996) found that 65% of employers would not hire an ex-offender regardless of his/her offense. Similar results where documented in a later study by Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2001) who found that two-third of 3,000 employers surveyed in four major metropolitan areas were reluctant to hire an ex-offender knowingly. One of the participants in the present study explains: No place was willing to take me in for work, those who did offer me the minimum wage, and this is exploitation! I have looked for work, fast food
The Importance of Employment in the Rehabilitation Process
63
restaurants, stores, and . . . it was all minimum wage, from dawn to dusk, exploitation. (Participant, age 33)
It is important to note that the lifetime earnings of formerly incarcerated individuals drop by 10–30% just due to being incarcerated, and having a criminal background (Kling, 2000). This also corresponds with statements presented in the previous section of this chapter that dealt with monetary debts. Finn and Willoughby (1996) state that there is an added dimension to this challenge; they argue that it is not the status of “ex-offender” that reduces the likelihood of being employed, but that the length of time unemployed is the focal point. For example, Kachnwski (2004) suggests that “. . . during the time they spent in prison, inmates often lose work skills, and forfeit the opportunity to gain work experience” (p. 34). Additionally, Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999) and Western, Kling, and Weiman (2001) argue that long periods of incarceration may weaken valuable social contacts that lead to legal employment. Accordingly, Finn and Willoughby (1996) argue that the ex-offender status had no effect on employment, and the only obstacle to finding employment is the long-term unemployment that negatively influenced their prospects of potential employment. Regardless of the reasons as to why released offenders encounter difficulties in gaining legitimate employment, ex-offenders’ experiences in the workforce after release is crucial for a successful reintegration and assimilation into the normative, law-abiding society. Facing a lack of employment, many will deviate to illegal sources of income that may accelerate their return to incarceration (Roman, Brooks, Lagerson, Chalfin, & Tereshcenko, 2005). Consequently, finding and maintaining legitimate employment after release can reduce the chances of re-offending. However, as previously discussed, many ex-offenders experience difficulties finding jobs after their release. This is due to several reasons, high among them the fact that many offenders are characterized by low levels of education, not having any specific and defined profession, having very little to no experience, and, in many cases, being unemployed for long periods of time (see Finn & Willoughby, 1996). Additionally, many times the length of incarceration results in offenders losing their work habits, if they had any, while forfeiting the opportunity to gain relevant and meaningful work experience. Moreover, length of incarceration may negatively affect necessary social contacts that lead to legitimate employment opportunities after release. Visher, Kachnowski, La-Vigne, and Travis (2004) explain that ex-offenders who obtain employment rely heavily on friends, family, and contacts maintained during prison. On top of these barriers, in the United States, most states and the federal government limit the occupations that ex-offenders can have (Legal Action Center, 2004)
64
6 Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job
and, thus, ex-offenders have even fewer employment opportunities and more barriers to self-improvement than ever before. For example, one of the participants of the present study explained why he had to go looking for a minimum wage job in fast food restaurants: I’m a cook, and I went to hotels and they will not hire me because of my criminal record . . . the only thing you can do is to seek for work from small businesses. (Participant, age 33)
Many places require their job applicant to provide a background check, before they begin their hiring process. Consequently, when released offenders, who are also recovering substance abusers, try to apply for a job and are honest about their past and condition, many potential employers choose not to deal with their applications (Uggen, 2000). One of the participants interviewed for the present study reported being fired after his employer found about his past: At the beginning they did not know that I was a released offender, after they knew they fired me. They took my personal information and went to the police to get a background check without my permission . . .. (Participant, age 33)
What Have I Got to Offer? Try to remember the last time you were on the market looking for a job, going for interviews, and marketing yourself to a potential employer. If you are like many others, you probably experienced some difficulties, and at times even felt like you are about to give up. For ex-offenders and, in particular, those who have histories of substance-abuse, this task becomes a real challenge. Tarlow and Nelson (2007) found that albeit the fact that many released offenders want to work and support their families, personal and structural barriers impede such endeavors as they transit from prison to the workplace. Among the chief impediment is their addiction. Substance abusers are drawn to the drug scene at an early age, as discussed earlier in this book. Participants in this present study reported the first time they used illegal substances at age 15 (Average calculated was 15.2 with a standard deviation of 3), with many of them entering the scene and experimenting with illegal substances at the much younger age of 12 and 13. Consequently, most of the participants had low level of education and were characterized by an average of middle school education (e.g., 8.2 years of education, with a standard deviation of 2.7); this is similar to the average of American inmates who according to Stone (1997), have an average of a ninth grade
What Have I Got to Offer?
65
education level. Moreover, studies in the United States have demonstrated that most inmates are poorly educated, lack vocational skills, struggle with drugs and alcohol abuse, and may also suffer from some form of mental illness (Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2005). In addition, Harlow (2003), in a survey of an American correctional population, stated that inmates report lower educational levels than the general population, with about 41% of state and federal prisoners not having completed the requirements for high school or the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) (Guerrero, 2010). Kachnwski (2004) concurs, reporting that a majority of her Baltimore, Maryland study participants also had poor educational backgrounds and “spotty employment histories” (p. 57). In addition she states that in the United States, prisoners are “. . . less likely to have participated in education and vocational programs” (p. 39), and, thus, have very little to offer upon release. Not surprisingly, and as a result of the above, many incarcerated individuals also lack the vocational skills needed to obtain and perform adequately in the workforce upon release. Correspondingly, more than quarter of the participants in this present study reported not having any particular occupation, with about a third reporting having a vocation only by on-the-job training. Only 38.5% of participants completed certified vocational training. That suggests that although about two thirds of the participants in the present study sample were employed previous to their incarceration, majority of them have no documented professional skills. Such shortage of much needed hard skills—knowledge acquired through formal education and training such as high-school diploma, academic degrees, and professional/vocational certificates, etc.—makes it extremely difficult for released offenders to compete in the working force upon their release. Add to that the fact that all of them carry the undesirable label of ex-offender. This was well illustrated by one of the participants interviewed for this study: The most difficult experience I had was to find a job . . . I had a hard time finding a job. I actually went for a whole week from one place to the other and asked everywhere if they needed a worker . . . I also used the Yellow-pages . . .. The hard thing is that you don’t have any thing to offer, a man asks you what you did yesterday, you got nothing to show for . . .. (Participant, age 30)
On a different level, ex-offenders also lack the networks, experience, and ultimately the opportunities to do so, as they may lack certain required soft skills—self efficacy grows from learning the unique culture of business, limited work experience—that prevent them from assimilating into the working-force culture (Bryan, Haldipur, & Williams, 2008). According to Holzer (1996) and Moss and Tilly (2000) many offenders lack effective
66
6 Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job
communication skills, are characterized by lack of positive attitude, and have low levels of motivation that impede them from successfully assimilating into today’s working environment. Conrad (1999) adds to the list of these non-technical skills, including problem-solving ability, other cognitive skills—including the ability to identify problems and evaluate alternative solutions, and weigh their risks and benefits—oral communication skills (i.e., the ability to listen, understand, and follow instructions), personal qualities and work ethic, as well as interpersonal and teamwork skills that are absent in many of the released inmates, which is particularly true for recovering substance abusers (for an expanded discussion see Tarlow, 2010). One of the participants in the study explains: Every [drug] addict that recovers loses some of his personal confidence, because you get used to doing things with the substance, now I don’t have confidence, I don’t have confidence to go to an employer to ask for work. (Participant, age 40)
Another participant explains that he was afraid to leave the house, whereas another explains the alienation from his immediate surroundings that can also be attributed to soft skills: . . . I wanted to go and work, [but] did not know what its like on the outside, it my first time being clean [not using drugs for some time], everything for me was new. People are staring at me and I look at them back as nobody . . . it was difficult for me . . .. (Different Participant, age 40)
Unfortunately that participant relapsed to abusing substances, and was found in a correctional facility during his interview. His case, unfortunately, is not the only one. When discussing employment barriers for both released offenders and newcomers, the question revolves around what the individual has to offer to potential employers. Although the situation may be different for legal documented newcomers, it is not as easy for those who carry the label of exoffender. Many have difficulties marketing their skills, as they have very limited ones, while others find it difficult to cope with the continuously changing demands and requirements. In addition, many are blocked as a result of their criminal record, and the lack of trust that potential employers manifest toward them, as discussed in the below section.
Trust Issues
67
Trust Issues According to Connerley and colleagues, employers have lost 72% of negligent hiring cases with an average settlement of $1.6 million (Connerley, Arvey, & Bernardy, 2001). Therefore, due to the fear of negligence lawsuits, many employers are reluctant to hire ex-offenders (Holzer et al., 2001; Lucken & Ponte, 2008; Petersilia, 2003). In a recent survey conducted in New York City and the tri-state area examining 879 people, the author of this book found that 43.8% of the people surveyed during 2008, said they are not fond of the idea of hiring an ex-convict. Similar results were found in a sample of 254 Israelis that were asked “if they were employers would they mind hiring ex-offenders?” However, in another study conducted by Holzer et al. (2001), it was found that over 60% of employers would “probably” or “definitely” not hire those with a criminal record. Many employers interviewed were more willing to hire welfare recipients and people with only GED than people with a criminal record. Yet, in another study by Pager and Quillian (2005), approximately 62% of employers examined said they would be willing to hire recovering substance abusers, whereas, in fact, a much smaller percentage of such applicants were invited for an interview. Accordingly, there is evidence that the stigma of a criminal record, as a “scarlet letter,” plays an important role in hiring decisions. Researchers, when examining the effect of criminal record on employers’ willingness to invite candidates for a job interview, reveal that, in fact, many employers will not invite applicants with criminal record (Uggen, 1999, 2000; Pager, 2003, 2007; Uggen & Thomson, 2003; Freeman, 2008; Stoll & Bushway, 2008; Uggen, 2008; Western, 2008). Similar findings were present in this study and can be illustrated by the following quote: No one wanted to hire me. The one who hired me eventually was an ex-addict. When people knew who I was they didn’t want to hire me and they used all kinds of excuses. (Participant, age 43)
Another participant was able to gain employment by concealing the fact of him being an ex-offender: I went into a shopping-mall . . . to a supermarket, before me another guy went and he was also lived in the same hostel as I did, and they [at the supermarket] did not give him the job because he was a [ex-] prisoner and an ex-drug addict . . . I decided to try, but I didn’t tell them I was a released prisoner, I didn’t tell them anything about my past. I came in and introduced myself. I sat with the manager for a talk . . . and he called
68
6 Working My Way Out—The Challenge of Finding a Job
me back after few hours and told me I can start working . . .. (Participant, age 34)
It was interesting to note that once the participant began to work and proved himself as a trustworthy and hard-working person, the employer’s attitude did not change when the offender revealed his past. In fact, those who were able to survive the first few months were able to maintain their employment. Similar results were documented by Tarlow and Nelson (2007).
Discussion and Summary Integration into the work force is a critical barrier that many ex-offenders must overcome. The importance of this issue was emphasized by more than half (59%) of the participants interviewed for this study. Finding and maintaining legitimate employment are essential for a successful reintegration as it provides the ex-offender, who is also a recovering addict, a much needed daily routine. Such routine is necessary as it provides social bonding to the community, and enables the individual to enjoy a normal meaningful life where he can support himself and members of his family, and pay off old debts. In that regard, being employed helps boosts self-esteem and personal morale, which, in turn, reinforces commitment to the community. By finding legitimate employment, recovering addicts and ex-offenders broaden their social circles and thus improve their social capital—the array of friends, family, neighbors, and other acquaintances that provide support and means for the exchange of support and information—which, in turn, ease the assimilation process. This is very similar to immigrants who, by obtaining legitimate employment, become involved in the local culture and gain the respect and trust of their colleagues who later become their informal “absorption” agents, providing them with guidance and support. However, in both cases—immigrant and ex-offenders—employment, even if obtained, may have a social mobility barrier attached to it that presents itself as low minimum wages. Low minimum wages prevent ex-offenders, as well as newcomers, from competing for available goods and social status as discussed by Merton (1957) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) and later by Agenew (1997, 2000). In turn, this increases levels of strain that may translate into “retreatism” that will cause the individual to resort to delinquent behavior. In addition, lowwage jobs also prevent ex-offenders from paying their monetary debts while also providing for their family, which perpetuates the problem further. For
Discussion and Summary
69
these reasons, employment and, in particular, quality employment, is often cited as a primary cause of decreased recidivism (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Uggen, 1999, 2000; Uggen & Thompson, 2003). Quality employment can be conceptualized both in terms of stability and economic compensation and in extra-economic terms of gaining a sense of meaning from one’s work (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 2001; Uggen, 1999). This by no means is to say that released offenders should expect high status and high-paying jobs upon release, in particular when they do not have the basic necessary skills. However, it is recommended that after a trial period, when the individuals have proved themselves in their place of employment, their pay should be reconsidered, and the opportunity should be conveyed to the employees as an incentive for sustained effort. In sum, securing employment during probably what is considered to be an extremely sensitive period after release from prison is essential for many reasons. Not only does it provide for the ex-offender, who is many times also recovering from his addiction with a daily routine, but is equally important for the ex-offenders’ children, families, and communities. Tarlow and Nelson (2007) explain that obtaining employment touches on some of the most pressing economic and public policy issues that are facing us as a country. A successful employment reentry strategy can improve public safety, help governments reduce correctional spending during tough economic times, and reduce poverty and joblessness for an exceptionally hard-to-employ population. Employment reentry can also promote family stability and a healthier future for millions of children in the United States who have fathers in the criminal justice system (see Tarlow & Nelson, 2007, pp. 138–141; Tarlow, 2010). In the next chapter we will focus on the use of soft skills acquired by participants in this study during their incarceration and treatment. Such skills are used not just to find employment and to benefit the released offender but others as well. Specifically, the next chapter focuses on released offenders who recovered from their addiction and decided to help those who go in the same path. Therefore, the next chapter will focus on mentoring others as an important step of the recovery process, and also as a fundamental idea in the reintegration process that can provide support to the recovering addict and to others.
Chapter 7
Mentoring Others
Support is a key factor in the recovery process, and is also a continuing need for released offenders on their long reintegration journey. The source of support is equally important as it can capture the essence and quality of the support given. We can make distinctions between formal support networks—criminal justice and related agencies that operate under official mandate and capacity and which are designed to treat and provide counseling and guidance to their clients, such as halfway houses, community supervision agencies, hostels, daycare centers, etc.—and informal support networks—an alternative, natural, unsupervised social network that comforts, guides, and assists in the reintegration process and may be referred to as agents of resocialization, such as family, friends, peers, and self-help groups such as the N.A., A.A., and the like. In this chapter, we aim to expand the discussion on the latter, the informal support network, and, in particular, that of the peer group and self-help groups, in order to understand the nature and importance of such groups to the process of recovery and reintegration. Since informal peer support is at the heart of this chapter it is important to briefly discuss the background of the participants in this study, a background that is shared by majority of substance abusers and incarcerated offenders.
Been There Done That As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, the social background of most substance abusers is similar. Many offenders, and in particular, substance abusers, are not invested in social ties, and their attachment to others revolves around unlawful conduct and around the substances being abused. According to Nagin and Paternoster (1994), offenders, and within that substance abusing offenders, are self-centered and have very little stake in what is going on in L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_7, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
71
72
7
Mentoring Others
their community. Many drug offenders can tell you horror stories about how they mugged their own family members, or even old defenseless people just to satisfy their need to “get high.” Even within the drug landscape substance abusers are accountable to no one but themselves, and are characterized by low loyalty to their peers. This is, as explained by some of the participants in the present study, an outcome of poor nurturing social environment that leads to low human capital—defined as individual capacity to navigate through basic life problems, the ability to improve one’s quality of life, and the capability to form and maintain meaningful relationships with others. In fact, Coleman (1988) demonstrates how social capital—examined by three forms such as obligation and expectations, information, and social norms—affects human capital. Although Coleman’s study focuses on high-school sophomores’ retention, his study is relevant to us, as it portrays the importance of the peers and social surroundings and its effect on the individual. By social capital—the array of friends, family, neighbors, and other acquaintances that an individual belongs to and is associated with, and is expected to provide support and a means for the exchange of support and information—we can also refer to the social background of the individual addict, however, here the discussion will not revolve around the socioeconomic status but on the social arena as a shaping force that is expected to provide support and guidance to its individual members as a socialization agent, and as an agent of social control that generates attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief (Hirschi, 1969) that prevent the individual from criminal engagement, as described by the following participant: I was never explained anything at home. I grew up in an old mans house [his grandfather raised him] . . . he never had the time to look after me, to see where I was, where I went, or what was happening with me. The first time anyone listened to me was with my friends, who smiled at me, and gave me their attention . . . it felt good and I did not care what they were doing . . .. (Participant, age 40)
Another participant concurs and shares his experience: I grew up in a house without a mother, that is from when I was six months old I did not have a mother. I remember myself spending most of my time outside on the streets. No one cared about me, no one asked where I was . . . even when I was six, or seven and I came home at two or three in the morning no one asked . . . I went to bed and woke up and no one would care when I came back, where I was or what I did, nothing . . . no one asked me if I was hungry, what is going on with you, are you feeling ok, are you sick, healthy, cold, warm . . . that’s it. With this absence of a mother, no father, someone to
Preaching the Practice (Passing the Torch)
73
be a father figure—although he was at home—he used to drink, play cards [gamble], and was more occupied with himself . . .. (Participant, age 50)
Consequently, the substance abuse is attributed to the harsh social background. Many of the participants who reported such conditions (more than 33% of interviewed participants) credited their current situation as substance abusers, to their rough childhood experiences. In that regard they all went through the same process—they have been there and done that—and now they feel they can apply their wisdom to help others. Using their knowledge, familiarity with a deprived background, and criminal history they recommend that treatment should focus on these issues as explained by the following participant: A person who uses drugs is doing this as a result of . . . [participant stops for a second] . . . and it is on these parts that he should be working [with his therapist], he needs to know what the factors are that lead him to this behavior, and to the drugs in the first place, not just to talk . . . I think this should be done so that people will succeed [detoxified and rehabilitate]. (Participant, age 34)
A tough social background surfaces in interviews with many of the present study’s participants. Such dismal backgrounds, characterized by emotional neglect, violence, and abuse, and at the same time lacking suitable normative alternatives, led the participants of this study to their current situation—that is, to criminality and substance-abusing dependency. Many studies that examined the relationship between family and delinquency demonstrate a strong and positive correlation between neglect and delinquency (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; McCord & McCord, 1959; Rutter & Giller, 1984; Cullen, 1994; Wright & Cullen, 2001). In the absence of adequate family support and a normative guardian to guide and support the participants during childhood, the participants tuned to what was available to them; the streets. They were exposed to low and inadequate social capital that furthered the deprivation of adequate human capital as discussed earlier.
Preaching the Practice (Passing the Torch) Peer groups, regardless of their nature, are the second most important social mechanism that affects socialization. Peer groups are attributed with great importance when the individual is growing apart from his family (Robertson, 1987). In his interactions with friends from his peer group, the individual
74
7
Mentoring Others
learns to make use of the social tools he acquired from his family, and thus belonging to a peer group of recovering substance abusers is their equivalent to being a part of a family. Such associations are positively related and interconnected, and positively valued separately, as they prevent the individual from re-socializing with active abusers and from engagement in the drug landscape. In a study that was conducted in Australia on social support networks of substance abusers at high risk of being infected with HIV, Stowe, Ross, Wodak, Thomas, and Larson (1993) showed that friends who formed the peer group were considered as the “significant others” and were referred to as an important social support, more so than family members. In fact, subjects in the Stowe et al. study reported that the substance abusers would seek guidance and assistance from their peers in comparison to their family. Furthermore, support by family and recovering peers may assist the addict in the stages of the recovery by providing him with feelings he is not alone, and he is no longer rejected by the community. Such informal agencies as the peer group are, in fact directing, protecting, and can be viewed as sources of positive social capital (Cheung & Cheung, 2000). It is in this context that meaningful mentoring becomes effective. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, substance abusers share similar experiences, and thus are better positioned to preach to a choir that they identify with and the one that identifies with them. Indeed, many recovering substance abusers and ex-offenders translate their criminal history into wisdom used “. . . as a drug counselor, youth worker, community volunteer, or mutual-help group participant” (Maruna, 2001, p. 117). By doing so, recovering substance abusers demonstrate their concern for the well-being of the future generation of substance abusers, their peers. Accordingly, they attribute their need to preach to others on tidings of been abstinent and that of the “new way.” By giving from yourself, they argue, you are not only helping others but also bring the salvation upon yourself (as will be discussed later in this chapter). The importance of preaching to others and showing them the right way is illustrated by the following quote: After the man is proving himself to be reliable at work, to keep him in this routine of passing the message [of sobriety] to others, or keeping him in some kind of a group where he helps others . . .. (Participant, age 36)
The abstinence from substance abuse as well as from a deviant way of life will succeed only if there is a constant awareness of dealing with the addiction, as being simply detoxified is not enough; there cannot be an
Giving and Receiving
75
assurance from future relapses, as being an addict is for life (and hence the use of “recovering” versus “recovered”). Consequently, many of the recovering addicts that are motivated to stay on the right path find themselves engaged in some sort of treatment even after their official treatment period is over. They are doing so by preaching the practice to others or by simply being sponsors to other substance abusers in self-help groups like the N.A. or A.A., counselors in halfway houses and hostels, and even counselors in detoxification centers inside correctional facilities. According to those participants that remained drug-free after seven years from their release, such involvement was and is essential as there is no “half pregnancy” (i.e., you cannot complete just part of the treatment by detoxification only), meaning you cannot only get physically “clean,” but you must complete the entire journey by helping others. By helping others, they argue, you can reflect on yourself, and can construct a new personality of a recovering drugaddict. No wonder that slightly less than three-quarters of the participants who maintained a drug-free life attributed their success to the fact that they became crusaders against substance abuse, by becoming counselors, mentors, and sponsors. Similar results were reported by Scott, Hawkins, and Farnsworth (1994) on substance abusing inmates who participated in prisonbased substance abuse programs in Texas by mentoring and motivating their peers.
Giving and Receiving Most recovering addicts agree that being an addict is for life, it is a disease that stays inside you; and, if not treated and acknowledged, it may erupt again. Therefore, making the journey to be drug free does not have a defined end point, a defined destination. The only way participants felt they completed their journey was by closing the circle and helping others. It is believed by many recovering addicts that by helping others they also help themselves and better themselves, as they abandon the criminal, addictive, self-centered behavior that was once part of their identity. Moreover, by giving to others, participants of this study felt like they were paying their debt to society. They felt like they were redeeming themselves. It was important for them to engage in such activity to earn back the trust of the community and of others close to them. By helping others they become legitimate, normative, and thus can be accepted back into society, as explained by the following participant:
76
7
Mentoring Others
Take care of yourself in giving and you’ll receive . . . I told myself that I’m going to establish a detox[ification] center . . . this will be my gift [back] to society, this will be my thing, my correction with my self and with the society and we’ll see where it will lead me. (Participant, age 36)
This participant ended up opening a detoxification and rehabilitation center and was drug-free more than seven years after completing his prisonbased treatment program. Other participants that remained drug-free and were interviewed for this study were engaged in similar activity by being drug counselors in halfway houses and hostels, becoming sponsors in self-help groups, and also by lecturing to high school kids.
Commitment—Being a Role Model Only when an individual finds a new purpose can he truly abandon his old ways. According to Toch (2001), a truly reformed individual is one that has acquired new goals in life, a fresh set of meanings, and a satisfying new role. Participants in this sample, similar to those found in Maruna’s (2001) study found the “light” and a sense of fulfillment in passing the message to others, as can be learned from the following quote: They asked me to talk [tell others]. To be honest, that what gave me the strength and showed me this way, of why I need to talk and how good it is that I do. It also taught me how to talk . . . now I suggest anyone who gets detoxified and participated in treatment to participate in such projects [talking to high-school kids]. It helped me . . .. (Participant, age 33)
Once empowered, participants felt like they found their calling in educating others and helping the next generation of substance abusers to grow out of their addiction. Leaning on their personal life experience, they became role models and as such they give back to the society that once cast them out. In giving back, they hope to earn a renewed place as respectable members of the community while displaying gratitude for giving them a second chance. Maruna (2001, p. 87) calls this process “making good,” stating that “. . . this redemption script allows the person to rewrite a shameful past into a necessary prelude to a productive and worthy life.” Furthermore, by becoming role models to others they assume responsibility, are committed to a goal, are making amends, and helping others. Such commitment fills a void that had previously hosted the addiction. Differently put, if before active substance
Commitment—Being a Role Model
77
abusers were characterized by lack of direction, and helplessness, now they are fulfilled by a mission, something that is greater than what they ever witnessed before. Such a mission gives them hope and engages them in helping others. This consumes their time and prevents them from wandering in the depths of their unpleasant memories and despair. By becoming role models, and committed members of the community, a bond is formed (see Hirschi, 1969). Such social bond will not only prevent them from engagement in further criminal activity and relapse, but will also provide a unique source of support. As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, Cheung and Cheung (2000) argue that such commitment is highly essential in promoting social capital that is gained through normative social networks; networks that are being created in the sake of conformity, abstinence, and desistance from criminal behavior. Accordingly, becoming a role model constitutes a powerful element of informal social control that is embodied in our society to restrain the individual and prevent him from being engaged in a delinquent and deviant behavior. In addition, such informal control stems from social interactions with significant others—such as other substance abusers that share common goals. The more frequent and stronger the interactions are, the stronger the restraining mechanisms become, and the less likely for the individual to turn to criminality, or relapse to substance abuse. These are also some of the ideas that are at the heart of Sutherland and Cressey’s (1960) differential association theory, also discussed previously in Chapter 1. Using the ideas espoused by Sutherland and Cressey (1960) in their differential association theory, and earlier by Glaser’s (1956) in his differential identification theory, there should be no wonder as to why recovering addicts assist others. Leaning on Glaser’s ideas recovering substance abusers use other recovered substance abusers as their reference group, where they identify with those who already went through the same experiences as them. The idea of role models as agents of change was also evident in a later work by Glaser (1964), who reported that older inmates usually provide counseling and help to younger inmates within the walls. In that capacity, he argued, they become agents for behavioral change, where they provide amateur counseling to younger offenders. By becoming amateur counselors on both the inside and upon release a normative network of support is being established, and as a result a normative and conventional social network is being reestablished. Belonging to such a social network can result in an increase in positive social capital (Cheung and Cheung, 2000). Such social capital is, in fact, a by-product of informal social control—discussed earlier—that becomes possible because the networks reject criminal and deviant behavior (Cullen, 1994; Hawkins et al., 1995; Hawkins and Fraser, 1983; Hirschi, 1969).
78
7
Mentoring Others
Discussion and Summary The first stage in acknowledging a problem is the willingness to talk about it. By talking and sharing their personal stories, the first stage of self-analysis concerning their problems is accomplished. This is also a critical stage in the rehabilitation process, a stage that promotes motivation, and may be considered as the pre-contemplation stage (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1993). This stage was also the first step toward becoming a counselor or a mentor, and toward repaying the debt recovering addicts felt they had to society. However, this was not the only reason for doing so. In order to maintain their abstinence many participants found strength in passing the message of salvation to others. By doing so, they found their mission and reported having a sense of accomplishment. Such accomplishment was not just a simple by-product of being drug-free, but more than that, being able to help others, and by doing that both repay the society and earn their place in the community as respectable, trustworthy individuals. Having undergone a life-altering transformation, recovering substance abusers that underwent intensive drug treatment before release felt competent and motivated to help others who suffer from similar addiction and criminality problems. Their experience has trained them to provide assistance to a new generation of recovering addicts and by doing so they find their own salvation. Maruna (2001) calls this trend a generative goal which is: . . . the concern for and commitment to promoting the next generation, manifested through parenting, teaching, mentoring, and generating products and outcomes that aim to benefit . . . and foster the development and well-being of individuals and social systems that will outlive the self. (inside Maruna, 2001, p. 99)
By becoming role models that serve the generative goal, as defined above, a normative network of support becomes available. Such a support network is essential to buffer sources of strain. According to Cullen “social support lessens the effects of exposure to criminogenic strains” (inside Cullen & Agnew, 2003, p. 539); it does so by reducing negative by-products of stress, while supervising and analyzing individual behavioral patterns in stressful situations. Moreover, by becoming a role model, and a mentor to other substance abusers, the individual assumes a new role in the social amalgam, a role of an educator, and, at times, the role of an adoptive parent. These new roles become the center of his daily routine, where he is committed not just to himself but to others. This is an important indicator of a major behavioral change, where criminal and old addictive behavioral patterns are neglected
Discussion and Summary
79
to make room for a new, more powerful entity—the redeemer and protector. If before substance abusers could not be counted upon to be responsible, to provide and care for others, now they show that they are changed. By manifesting such behavioral change they regain their status in the normative community as equal trustworthy members.
Chapter 8
Dealing with Social Institutions
I am an institutionalized man . . . what I know is the inside, the world outside is strange to me . . . Morgan Freeman as “Red” in Shawshank Redemption
The feeling of helplessness, the knowledge that we as individuals are nothing but miniatures compared to a gigantic system of social bureaucratic institutions is a frustrating notion to many of us. Without a doubt, each and every person at least once had to deal with governmental bureaucracy: Social Security (SSA), motor vehicles (DMV), or utilities (electric or telephone company). The forms that have to be filled in, and the time that needs to be spent in addition to other time and nerve wrecking arrangements are another barrier to reintegration that is shred by newcomers/ immigrants during their assimilation process. When such difficulties are encountered by released inmates who are also recovering substance abusers it may have a stressful effect on them, which may result in substance relapse and further criminal involvement as an act of despair. But these are not the only agencies that returning inmates need to confront. Social services and informal societal barriers may also become a major impediment. According to Petersilia (2003, p. 102) “. . . prisoners are often left to fend for themselves in navigating the difficult social service delivery system when they return to the community.” They often stop their treatment and return to manifest the same unhealthy and criminal behavior that led to their imprisonment, “and the cycle repeats itself” (ibid.). Accordingly, this chapter aims to discuss this aspect while making recommendation on how such burdens can be eased.
L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_8, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
81
82
8
Dealing with Social Institutions
From the Belly of the Beast to the Belly of Bureaucracy When an individual is entering a correctional facility his entire identity is stripped away from him. He can no longer provide for himself, accommodate his needs, or control his movement. Once incarcerated, offenders are stripped of their freedom and individuality, and they are admitted to a social institution where they are told when and what to eat, when to sleep, when it is possible to make a phone call, and when it is time to read and even what to read. The facility even controls the temperature in your cell. All your basic needs are fulfilled by the institution, and as an incarcerated individual there is literally nothing you need to do. When in need of certain services, a guard escorts you to the provider and a social worker or a case manager fills in the forms on your behalf. In a way, being in the belly of the beast (i.e., the prison system) is a time-out from all the bureaucracy that is going on in the outside world. The problems begin with the transition from the facility back to the community, when there is no one to guide the recently released inmate. This problem magnifies and intensifies when a long sentence is completed. In addition, the world for substance abusers orbits around the constant chase after the substance. Essentially, active substance abusers spend the majority of their time thinking about how to get the drugs, and how to get “high.” Accordingly, substance abusers know where to get the drugs, how to obtain it, and how they should behave in different situations, including ways to avoid officials, evade law enforcement, and ways to use the system to support their habit. It can be argued that the addicted individual fully fulfills his role expectations. Therefore, when he recovers from his addiction and makes an effort to start fresh it is expected that old habits and behavior patterns will be neglected, and new normative behavioral patterns will be adopted. However, many of the recovering substance abusers, and especially those released from incarceration, are confronted with a difficult challenge, a challenge that is viewed by many as far more difficult than the physical detoxification. This challenge is the mental rehabilitation, in particular, the rehabilitation of the personality and self. Many of the participants interviewed for this study experienced a plunge in terms of their self-confidence, saying they had such extremely low self-confidence that they felt prevented from doing everyday things. For example, one of the participants explained how this affected his ability to look for a job: Every [drug] addict that cleans [stop using drugs] loses some of his confidence, ‘cause you get used to doing things with the drug [under the influence of the substance], now I don’t have any [self-] confidence, I don’t feel confident to go to an offices to look for work . . .. (Participant, age 40)
From the Belly of the Beast to the Belly of Bureaucracy
83
Similar evidence was recorded from another participant explaining how he felt worthless and powerless: In the presence of my wife I felt like unworthy, like a dependent, I wanted to go and work, but did not know the outside, first time I am clean [not using drugs], everything is new to me. People are looking at me, and I look back as nobody . . . It was very difficult for me and was easy to escape. (Participant, age 40)
Unfortunately this last participant relapsed shortly after and was incarcerated for 48 months period for multiple property offenses. The low level of self-confidence is many times associated with the tendency to detach from others and to stay away from everyday challenges, a kind of postponing the end. Such behavior is best explained by Cloward and Ohlin (1960) in the retreatist pattern—which is a response to frustrated opportunities and can also be associated with a reluctance to participate in the normative goal attainment of society (see Merton, 1938). Moreover, this type of behavior indicates high levels of strain that have a paralyzing effect on the individual, as we will discuss in the next chapter. It is because of this paralysis that many of the participants in this study turn to drugs in the first place, as a way of coping with their stress, blocked opportunities, deprivation and difficulties, as was explained by the following participant: During the first month after I got out, I was afraid to get out of my house. As if . . . it was the first time I was clean, a period of almost two years. Inside the prison it was like my private nursery . . . I got out and I was in shock, and I’m telling you, I was afraid to leave the house . . . I don’t know how to explain this to you, but I didn’t have any confidence in me, I had nothing . . .. (Participant, age 32)
It is from testimonies like the above that we can learn on the low self-confidence that characterizes many released and recovering substance abusers. Their experience and mental condition projects on their ability to reintegrate in the normative community while coping with many of the barriers that are mounted by bureaucracy, and other formal social institutions. Another dimension is added to this difficulty by the fact that many substance abusers spent long years incarcerated—either in one long stretch, or in multiple imprisonments—which causes them to develop revulsion and distrust for criminal justice agencies, and other official/governmental institutions and agencies, kind of like “them versus us” approach (although there
84
8
Dealing with Social Institutions
are those practitioners who argue that substance abusers also develop dependence on the system to provide their needs without any effort). In addition, as was discussed in Chapters 2 and 6, a majority of substance abusers are not affiliated with the high stratum of society; many of them come from poor families, with deprived communities, a poor level of education, and low vocational skills. According to Lewis (1966), such individuals find it difficult to approach governmental or other formal social institutions (see also Miller, 1976; Harvey & Reed, 1996). When they do approach these agencies they lack the necessary proficiency in the ways that procedures should be handled. This, in turn, leads many to despair and retreat. In the case of participants of this study, such blemished encounters had a far reaching influence on their reintegration process, as evident from the following participants: I was in a situation when I was clean, I wanted to begin a new way . . . the authorities, the difficulties they pile on you, with all the bureaucracy in this country, it was difficult to deal with . . .. (Participant, age 40)
A different participant explained with great frustration how he begged for help to get into a therapeutic community to continue his treatment, to no avail: The system is sealed, totally sealed, I am telling you that three and a half months, four months I am trying to find funding to get myself into a community [TC], and nothing . . .. (Participant, age 38) The authorities outside, you got to them, to the welfare, and you explain you situation to them . . . I have problems with social security . . . and they don’t care . . . we will take care of it [they say] . . . [but] they don’t do anything, we will do something, but they don’t do anything. (Participant, age 41)
Another participant approached the Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority— a government-mandated agency designed to guide and counsel released offenders—for their help in finding employment, again with very little success. The Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority . . . they told me to come over, and then sent me away, and then directed me to go there and here . . . I had to steal just to fund the bus fare . . . waste of time . . . this is nothing . . . every other agency I went to was the same story, waste of time I’ m telling you . . .. (Participant, age 35)
As a result of these negative encounters many give up and, as means of coping, revert to their old habits of crime and substance use:
Absorption Agents and Social Support—Can Someone Show Me the Way?
85
I was going to the welfare office . . . and they told me come tomorrow . . . go in two days from tomorrow . . . I saw everything building up in front of me . . . all the mess began to take over . . .. (Participant, age 41) I saw these things [the difficulties the system mount on you] . . . people had difficulties, and did not have the strength to deal with this, they simply gave up, and fell apart! (Participant, age 46)
Another participant explains that he lost hope and did not care any more: I tried to get financial assistance for an apartment from the city, and they told me to go there and come back here, and fill out all kinds of forms . . . I neglected it all due to the drugs, and I did not care any more. (Participant, age 45)
Absorption Agents and Social Support—Can Someone Show Me the Way? As described above, the transition from prison back to the community is not an easy one, in particular, for someone who spent many years behind bars. Upon release many inmates must confront their fears and approach governmental and other social institutions—that so far were identified with the same institution that removed them from society—to get, not just their personal identity in order, but also their documents. Many released inmates do not have basic necessary documentation such as their birth certificate, valid driver license, proof of education, or even a social security card. These are basic things that we normally do not spend much time thinking about; however, they are essential for our survival in today’s society, and they are also the first step of reintegration. Lofland (1969) in his book on Deviance and Identity addresses the problem of being stripped of one’s identity. According to him the “horrors of identity nakedness are a fate worse then death” (p. 288). As described earlier in this chapter many recovering addicts lose their confidence and become fearful of the outside, and then face a new phase in their journey. This new phase is one of moving into their own identities, trying to figure who they are and where they are heading. Their journey is a result of a “radical change in behavior” (Maruna, 2001, p. 86). However, the journey is an ongoing process where help from multiple sources— from both inside and the outside—is needed as well as much appreciated. Consequently, any help that can be provided from formal, as well as informal, social institutions is a source of support. For example, Toch (1997)
86
8
Dealing with Social Institutions
suggests that prison chaplains are not only a wonderful source of psychological support system, but they are also “. . . potential links to the community” (p. 95). Formal agents like parole officers, counselors both inside the facility and outside in the community, as well as faith-based organizations are essential to ease the transition and make the journey less frustrating for the released inmate. Similar to released inmates, newcomers can also face identity crises, which many times can be characterized by low levels of self confidence. After all, they are new to the country, its folkways and culture, and may not have the adequate tools to properly deal with certain situations. As an immigrant I still remember the time of my arrival to the United States—and even while knowing the language—I was still faced with many informal behavioral obstacles, that I could not be prepared for ahead of time. It is for this reason that the community should be called to assist with the absorption of immigrants; providing them with informal support, while also giving them a sense of direction. Young, Taxman, and Byrne (2003) call for similar initiatives that would engage communities in offender reentry in the same way that community policing operates. Henderson and Hanley (2006) highly recommended that criminal justice agencies, social service agencies, faith-based organizations, and other community-based entities work together, not only to prepare offenders for their release but also to ease their transition and integration in the community as contributing societal members (also see Taxman, 2002). Such collaboration between different community-based organizations is part of the American Office of Justice Programs (OJP) reentry initiative described by Young et al. (2003), known as the Reentry Partnership Initiatives (RPIs). These initiatives target communities that are characterized by “high per capita rates of prison releases” (ibid, p. 5), proactively monitoring communities, foreseeing problems, and solving problems. This is done by identifying necessary services and sources of support, both formal and informal. Additionally, case managers work with individual inmates before release to identify potential risks while also devising ways to deal with such risks. This is very similar to the function of the Israeli Prisoners rehabilitation Authority (IPRA) established by law in 1984 (for further discussions on IPRA see Chapter 9). Additional US initiatives were prompted by the Second Chance Act that was signed into a law on March of 2008 by President George W. Bush. Communities are empowered by these initiatives to protect public safety while supervising the offender and simultaneously providing him with much needed support and guidance. It is hoped that such a synthesis of ideas will become widespread, as observed in the Israeli reentry partnership initiatives and from years of dealing with transitioning individuals who migrated to the country. Different
Absorption Agents and Social Support—Can Someone Show Me the Way?
87
agencies in the community—both formal and informal, such as parole supervision, and the family roles discussed earlier—are called upon to cultivate a collaborative effort that will restore the peace to the community by aiding the released offender in the reintegration process. Studies have shown that recovering drug addicts will not succeed in their rehabilitation and reintegration if they return to the same neighborhood after recovery (De Leon, 1989, 1994; Yablonsky, 1989), and especially if the transition is not mediated by agencies that will regulate and diminish the shock of transition while providing guidance, supervision, and protection (Kadman et al., 1995). This idea may be linked to the ideas espoused by Braithwaite (1989), arguing that reintegrative shaming has the ability to control crime, and thus reduce recidivism promoting a more successful reintegration (also see Braithwaite, 2002). Moreover, communities that are receptive to the idea of collaborative effort are also more conducive to the ideas of restorative justice, and reintegrative shame, which nurtures the released offender within a network of attachments that are conventional to the normative society (Braithwaite, 1989). As a result, released offenders can be exposed to essential information that will lead to legitimate economical opportunities that are critical for the survival of the offender in the reintegration process. It is vital that informal social agencies within the community become absorption agents, or agents of change and reintegration. It is well documented by early studies such as that of Sampson (1988), and Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) that such informal agencies are better equipped to provide social control, as they are more powerful in achieving behavioral change and maintaining it. These informal agencies and, in particular, specific individuals within a given community can be referred to as “natural guardians”—people who can be characterized by a personal and intimate relationship to the individual offender that has the ability to guide and protect them (Smith, 2001). The natural guardian also has the ability to provide the released offender with support (see also Nelson et al., 1999; Smith, 2001), different from formal social agencies such as parole, and other community corrections agencies and formal social services that represent the institution that many offenders may perceive as their “enemy.” However, as stated before, a collaborative effort is warranted, as parole agents “. . . intuitively know that formal control agents are potentially more effective in both monitoring and responding to offender behavior” (Young, Taxman, & Byrne, 2003, p. 10), and can also provide valuable source of support in dealing with the different barriers, as their availability does not end within an eight hour working day (ibid). In addition, formal social control agencies are responsible for controlling offenders’ behavior. As such they are not equipped to provide positive reinforcement, and support. This is why informal social agencies in the
88
8
Dealing with Social Institutions
community should collaborate with formal agencies such as the police and parole and other formal social services. Figure 8.1 illustrates the distribution of recidivists versus non-recidivists in the Sharon sample for those incarcerated in the Sharon between 1996 and 1997, a total of 254 inmates. As can be seen from this figure, those in contact with the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (IPRA) were characterized by significantly lower recidivism. This was also observed for those who chose to continue their substance abuse treatment in the community upon release. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Recidivated Not Recidivated Hostel/ Halfway House
Parole Supervision
Anti Drug Units in the Community
IPRA
Fig. 8.1 Type of follow-up intervention in the community after release from the Sharon prison-based (TC) program
Within multiculturalism and diversity the community has the ability to understand the offender and his needs while at the same time anticipate his behavior and proper ways to respond to it. Young et al. (2002, p. 10) state that such intimate knowledge of both the offender and the community he returns to enable informal agents in the community to better “. . . assess and inform the offender’s plans in such areas as housing and employment” (ibid: 10). As with communities and neighborhoods that absorb migrants, informal agents in the community have an interest in seeing the offender successfully reintegrate, as this promotes public safety and also contributes to the entire community’s sense of cohesion—a cohesion that will result in support and a sense of direction that will guide the offender in his reintegration endeavors.
Discussion and Summary A possible improvement to formal social and governmental agencies that are aimed to provide services to released offenders is that they should be more flexible when they deal with recovering and released offenders who
Discussion and Summary
89
are trying to rebuild their lives and reintegrate into the normative society. The barriers mounted by such agencies and by bureaucracy may trigger offenders’ relapse. After all, relapsing to drug abuse and further engagement in criminal conduct is a known way by which offenders tend to deal with stress and helplessness. Moreover, the hardship created by these institutions reduces the trust of the client—in this case, the recovering substance abuser who fights to reintegrate and rehabilitate his life—in the normative system, and thus the system is perceived by those who are reintegrating as obtuse, vindictive, and practically full of scorn for them. Parole supervision was originally designed to help incarcerated offenders make the transition from prison back to the community in a step-by-step process, while helping released inmates to address some of the initial difficulties they face upon release, and in particular to help them overcome bureaucratic impediments. This expectation is shared by many released offenders who would like their assigned parole officers not just to police and monitor their actions, but, as explained earlier in Chapter 4, also to support and guide them during the critical period of their reintegration. Unfortunately, parole systems in the United States have departed from such a mission, despite the fact that more inmates, and in particular substance abusing offenders, are increasingly asking for such services. Petersilia (2003) supports this idea, citing an earlier work by Lynch (1999) that argues that “even when traditional rehabilitative tools are available to agents [parole agents] . . . they are treated as rehabilitative in discourse, but are often used for coercive control in practice” (Lynch, 1999, p. 857 inside Petersilia, 2003, p. 80). Consequently, many released offenders are left to their own devices to navigate their new world when trying to reintegrate with the normative community. As a result, many parolees experience elevated levels of stress that many times results in violation of their parole, or leads to committing a new crime that will send them back to the environment they became used to. After all, as noted by Morgan Freeman playing the role of the inmate “Red” in the opening quote of this chapter, these individuals are institutionalized and cannot be expected to navigate through the hardships of bureaucracy; these are hardships that many normative people find it difficult to deal with. Consequently, it is recommended that parole agencies will continue their traditional goals while putting more practical emphasis on a social work and service provider approach and less emphasis on a punitive law enforcement approach. However, this recommendation may be difficult to implement with a constantly increasing parole population. Nevertheless, it is essential that alternatives be considered and developed to address such dire need, especially because success with this approach will also promote public safety.
Chapter 9
What Does Migration Have to Do with Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration?
Examining the experiences of two very different populations that went through two islands in New York, one is Ellis Island and the other is Rikers Island, one cannot stop to wonder how different the two are when examining the integration and assimilation process of the individuals who went through them. How different are the processes that the two groups undergo during their efforts to assimilate into the normative civil community? Or are they? This chapter explores the premise that the experience of immigrants bears interesting similarities to those of released offenders, in terms of their integration/assimilation challenges and struggles, and uses some successful migration models to examine offender integration solutions similar to absorption, acculturation, and assimilation strategies that are used to solve migration challenges. It is possible to argue that the two integration scenarios tend to be similar in terms of experiences and expectations, but with different players and different adaptation solutions. Although there are other more scientific definitions for migration, migration as a useful term for our comparison in this book will be defined in its broadest meaning as making the transition from one geographical place to a new destination, with the intention of settling in that destination. While the reasons for migration are diverse and may include forced migration, voluntary migration—usually associated with a promise of employment—legal migration, migration for established employment, for family reasons, or simply for the hope of changing one’s luck, all migration scenarios share similar characteristics. In many cases, a learning curve or assimilation curve exists, wherein the newcomer learns about survival in the new local environment. We begin this chapter by examining the role of communities in the assimilation and reintegration process. We then discuss the availability of information, segmented employment markets, and feelings of stress combined with the struggle to survive as a few shared experiences of both immigrants and released offenders. L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_9, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
91
92
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
Impact on Communities The Industrial Revolution was marked as an era saturated with social problems that resulted from massive urbanization and employment-related rural-to-urban migration. Problems erupted in large numbers, such as unemployment, weakening of the uprooted family, lack of traditional support by the extended family often left behind, and ethnically segmented communities. These stressors precipitated mental health issues in many of these communities, and, consequently, correlated with increased crime rates. At the beginning of the twentieth century, when massive foreign migration waves entered the United States, newcomers settled in urban communities characterized by massive lack of cohesion and plagued by social decay, lack of attachment, and low levels of control over its members. It is within these neighborhoods that immigrant communities were exposed to the ills of society, which in turn promoted the opportunity for delinquency to flourish, thus furthering existing social cleavages and perpetuating the decaying process. This deterioration, in turn, caused some communities to affect neighboring communities in what may be considered a desertification process—a term taken from earth science to describe the expansion of desert environment into nearby non-desert areas. Metaphorically, this explains how communities are drained of their social and human capital as they decay, losing all possible sources of support and chances of social mobility. Even today, many communities that fit this model become chaotic areas that perpetuate the ills that generated the decay in the first place. Simultaneously, and contrary to the above, many homogeneous immigrant neighborhoods become vibrant ethnic economic enclaves that trigger overall neighborhood gentrification. Even though the spill-over of certain neighborhood attributes is negative in nature and can be described by the desertification process, this is not the case for other newcomers, who are oftentimes characterized by a high motivation to succeed. Such desire causes them to relocate from decaying communities and neighborhoods, furthering their assimilation. Shifting our focus from transitioning immigrants to transitioning offenders, the effect of massive incarceration on communities becomes a vital point of concern. In contrast to the positive effect the immigrant may have on poor communities, massive incarceration is known to have a strong negative effect on deprived communities, furthering their social disorganization and decay by draining any available source of positive social and human capital. Indeed, the weakening of some communities, in particular ethnic minority communities, is being magnified by the burden of such massive incarceration, and thus the term desertification becomes more appropriate for these
Impact on Communities
93
communities. According to both Petersilia (2001) and Travis (2005), and according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009), between 93 and 95% of all incarcerated individuals will return to their home communities once released. Their incarceration and reintegration has collateral damage on the community as community life and the lives of its members are disrupted and damaged (see Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Clear, 2007). Indeed, in a study conducted by the Urban Institute it was found that 34% of prisoners returning to Chicago in 2001 were concentrated in 6 of Chicago’s 77 communities, with a majority of Illinois released offenders (97%) returning to other Illinois deprived communities best described as deprived (La-Vinge, Mamalian, Travis, & Visher, 2003), thereby contributing even more to the weakened capacity of these communities—which tend to be economically and socially disadvantaged (ibid). However, about 45% of released offenders that returned to the six neighborhoods in Chicago went to neighborhoods other than the ones they resided in, prior to their recent incarceration (LaVinge et al., 2004). Similar results were found by Visher et al. (2004) in Baltimore, Maryland, where again more than a third of the released inmates returned to only 6 of 55 Baltimore communities. Regardless of whether it was the original community before incarceration or not, the absorbing communities were mostly characterized by poverty and social decay. When large portions of the population, including young people, are going in and out of correctional facilities, the main tasks that communities are trusted with, such as providing a sense of belonging, support, a safe environment for raising children, and a sense of security and pride, are hindered. Such processes were in the heart of the Chicago School that examined the relationships between community characteristics and criminal behavior (see among others, Park, Burgess, & McKenzie, 1925; Shaw & McKay, 1942; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Sampson & Raundebush, 1999). These studies have focused on environmental factors (i.e., ecological schools of thought) such as neighborhood, community, and housing characteristics and their association with criminal behavior and juvenile delinquency. They offer explanations as to why some areas are infested with high crime rates while others are not. In particular, many of these scholars argue that lack of social stability, as the result of a population in transit, creates the predisposition for instability that translates into social decay. The low level of social and community control and support perpetuates low social capital that, in turn, prevents social growth. With high concentrations of released offenders returning to a small number of communities (Farrell & Kachnowski, 2004), researchers have begun to examine the impact on communities and the returning offenders caused by soaring rates of incarceration and the corresponding rates of reintegration of offenders on
94
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
both the community and the offenders themselves (see Clear, 2002; Clear, Rose, & Ryder, 2001; Rose, Clear, Waring, & Scully, 2000; Clear, 2007; Young et al., 2003). Specifically, these studies focus on the barriers that impede offenders from successfully reintegrating into their communities. At the same time, these studies focus on the effects of returning inmates to their social environment, and, in particular, examine families, children, and labor, as well as the legitimacy of social institutions in the community. One concern, for example, is that returning offenders many times are prevented from participating, or may just be reluctant to participate, in political decision-making as they are not allowed to vote, thus increasing their disenfranchisement within their communities. Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999) argue that “. . . when imprisonment becomes more common and widely expected in a social group, the changes in social networks and structures may often become damaging for the group” (p. 132). This damage may also have negative bearing on social capital of both individuals and entire communities (see Rose & Clear, 1998), and in particular on members of minority communities (see Loury, 1992). For example, it was found that gang membership spills over from inside correctional facilities to the community through communication with individuals who are not incarcerated and also spreads through the eventual release of incarcerated gang members to their home communities (Moore, 1991). As a result, communities lose cohesion over time, with fewer individuals available who have the ability to guide, supervise, and support their youngsters. Role models are in short supply to young children who many times grow up without adequate parental supervision. In the United States, many communities affected by the massive incarceration rates are also communities of color, communities that suffer from disruption to social and gender balance as most men in their twenties and thirties are incarcerated—leaving women in those age groups without the ability to wed and establish normative families and households (Clear, 2002). Most often, this results in births outside wedlock, as well as increasing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS/HIV and hepatitis. Consequently, many of the above elements of social decay must be addressed as they become critical for successful reintegration of released offenders transitioning from incarceration to the free civil community. Moreover, disorganized and decaying communities suffer from lack of job availability and poor social service delivery, while at the same time they have high rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, as well as illegal drug trafficking and use. As noted by La-Vinge et al. (2003), the majority of released offenders released from Illinois prisons in 2001 returned to such disadvantaged communities (in particular to 6 out of Chicago’s 77 communities), thereby perpetuating the already existing
Impact on Communities
95
social problems, while worsening the decay, and increasing the separation from other better-off communities (usually referred to as middle-class communities). Therefore, there is little wonder why many of these released offenders are rearrested within months after their release. In a study examining Baltimore prisoners’ experiences of returning home, Visher et al. (2004) concurred that large portions of ex-prisoners are concentrated in disadvantaged communities characterized by poverty and unemployment. Such communities, they argue, are also characterized by social and economic disadvantages that may accelerate the risk of recidivism, and thus these communities are also affected by higher crime rates, as discussed earlier. Even if released offenders do not return to their preprison communities—as was found in Chicago and Baltimore—they, most often, tend to settle in socially fragile or otherwise unstable communities. However, as indicated by both La-Vinge et al. (2003) and Visher et al. (2004), moving to different communities after release was explained by majority of offenders as a logical effort to avoid trouble and unnecessary risks. Similar evidence was presented by the following participant in the present study: You return to the [old] neighborhood, you are already in trouble. Everything is there, in front of your eyes, and you got nothing else to do, so you take the easy way, the way I was before, again getting high, and again . . . after a while I moved in with a girl who was also an addict . . .. (Participant, age 38)
Another participant explains the need to change his social surroundings as follows: From the day I got out, I moved into a new place. I detached myself from all my previous [social] connections and opened a new page. That was the rationale of moving here, because I was accepted to a treatment center in TelAviv [my old neighborhood]. I simply decided to begin with zero, not minus, because in Tel-Aviv people know me . . . I tried to avoid this . . .. (Participant, age 30)
Consequently, communities affected by high levels of incarceration and correspondingly high rates of released offenders also experience higher crime rates than more stable communities with lower incarceration rates. Past studies that focused on these issues suggest that disadvantaged communities experience destabilized informal networks of social control, which, in turn, lead to increases in offending, or in the case of ex-prisoners, re-offending (see Lynch & Sabol, 2001; Rose & Clear, 1998; Rose et al., 2000). This is very similar to what Park et al. (1925) and Shaw and McKay (1942) explain in the “Zone Theory”—an environmental theory of crime
96
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
causation based on the belief that structural elements of society, such as poverty, illiteracy, lack of schooling, unemployment, and illegitimacy, are powerful forces that influence human interaction that promote delinquency and crime (Fagin, 2005, p. 566). This theory was developed by the Chicago School to explain why urban areas are often infested with crime. It was attributed to the fact that migration waves that concentrated in the poor areas of downtown Chicago—Zone I—were characterized by very low attachment to their community, as newcomers saw those communities as stepping stones to other places, and thus were not invested in their communities. This was in addition to the fact that parents were struggling to provide for their families in the new world, which resulted in decreased support and supervision of the children (for a further discussion on the Chicago School and Zone Theory please refer to Park et al., 1925; Shaw & McKay, 1942; Sampson & Wilson, 1990). Sampson et al. (1997) hypothesized that collective efficacy—social cohesion among neighbors in combination with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good—is associated with reduced violence. Examining a sample of 8,782 residents in 343 neighborhoods in Chicago, they were able to prove their hypothesis, thus adding another important layer to our understanding of the importance of social cohesion and support to the reduction of crime. Accordingly, social and environmental issues should be at the core of every assimilation/reintegration discussion as they address a plethora of societal challenges. Many times, we see ethic enclaves that house immigrants with similar language, cultural background, and habits. By remaining in these enclaves, those immigrants segregate themselves and avoid assimilating into the general population of the host country or community. However, this is not the only consequence, and self-segregation may have far-reaching disadvantages, one of which is blocked mobility opportunities; it is harder to join any new community that is not also self-segregated. Similarly, drawing from the principles of Differential Association Theory—discussed earlier inChapter 1—a person who tries to rehabilitate from substance abuse and reintegrate into the normative drug-free society is better off if he stays away from the places that he associates with during the time of his addiction. Therefore, it is not recommended for released offenders who wish to desist from their substance abuse and criminality to return to the same environment where old, unhealthy social connections await them. Both immigrants and released offenders should carefully consider the communities they choose; their chosen affiliation may later impede their assimilation and/or reintegration when mobility is essential. According to the assimilation model, the process of assimilation is expected to be gradual during the first generation, with the second generation being completely assimilated. However, when
Impact on Communities
97
immigrants are stagnant and remain in the same ethnic enclave as when they first arrived, the assimilation of their children is affected as well. Similarly, the difficulty in moving away from disadvantaged communities will impede chances of reintegration for the recovering and released offender, and also have a negative effect on his family, impeding the chances of his descendents successfully integrating into normative society from the outset. However, it is crucial to make the observation that unlike returning offenders, immigrants tend to bring a vital ethnical “breath of fresh air” to their landing communities, which are considered, in ideal circumstances, as stepping stones to mobility. In fact, many newcomers are forced to choose poor and deprived communities upon their arrival and will make an effort to abandon such communities whenever they get the chance to do so, as was illustrated by the Chicago School and Zone Theory. As explained earlier in this section, many homogeneous immigrant communities become vibrant ethnic communities that trigger gentrification—which results in the renewal of these previously deprived communities by highly motivated and determined immigrants who wish to pursue the goals of the mainstream society, an effect which is amplified by the presence of the middle class. Additionally, by creating an ethnical enclave, an informal social control is being formed. Reckless (1961a) referred to it as outer containment explaining that members of highly organized and cohesive communities become external informal barriers from negative criminogenic factors that may have an effect on the individual. Released offenders differ from immigrants in that they tend to return to deprived and disorganized communities, where supervision and informal support are lacking or simply not available. Released offenders may also lack sincere motivation or intention to bring change, or gentrification to their communities. As mentioned earlier, not only do many released offenders do not bring a “breath of fresh air” to their communities they also bring a subculture of prison with them instead, which furthers and deepens the chaos and decay. Our discussion makes it clear that it is important to acknowledge the role of communities in the reintegration process, especially because communities are far more powerful than formal agencies and are excellent providers of informal social control, and thus may do a better job “. . . in achieving and maintaining behavioral change” (Young et al., 2002 p. 9). Collective efficacy, as defined earlier, which promotes informal social control, may also reduce triggers of crime by eliminating opportunities that arise from a decaying environment. This may pave the way to an easier reintegration process while providing the released offender with support and guidance that serves the common good, while promoting public safety as a result of
98
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
stronger ties to the community. Such collective efficacy is also part of a successful assimilation process for newcomers.
Same Story, Different Players In this section, we will focus on three elements of the assimilation /integration process that are at the heart of both the immigrants’ and the released offenders’ experiences: information versus discharge plan; systematic exclusion from certain jobs; and stress and anxiety. Of course, there are other important issues to be discussed, but the focus on these three provides a foundation from which to examine both scholarly viewpoints and practical considerations of release and integration programs. While each of the elements is shared by both groups, immigrants and released offenders differentiate by their predisposed ability to cope and survive and by their resource availability; measures of success of either group can benefit both groups.
Information and Discharge Planning Transition requires knowledge and preparation that will address foreseen challenges while minimizing difficulties. When offenders are sentenced to a term of incarceration, they are usually not being offered any intervention to address the source of their criminality. According to Petersilia (2003, p. 80), “today correctional facilities offer fewer services than they did few decades ago, when offenders had less severe problems.” Therefore, a first challenge for inmates about to be released is to acquire tangible information on available services on the outside. Such information may ease the burden of dealing with insensitive bureaucratic agencies, while it also helps those in need to prepare for their transition. Additionally, having information and a sense of direction reduces potential stress, while allowing the about-tobe released offender an opportunity to plan ahead of time and calculate his actions. For addicted offenders, the immediate risk is the point of reentry back into the community. If they have no preconceived plan and lack a sense of direction, they will head straight to the drug scene, the only place they know. Lack of daily routine, as a result of poor planning, or because of a lack of information, was found to be a critical factor that was reported by many participants interviewed for this study. The lack of information and guidance negatively affected participants in this study, as one of the participants explained:
Same Story, Different Players
99
I didn’t get any guidance, I had no routine, I got out, I was all over the place without any routine. (Participant, age 52)
Another participant explained that when he got out he did not even know where to go and who to ask for direction—shortly after release he relapsed and was arrested and sentenced for another term of imprisonment: I got out, and I had nothing, I didn’t even know where to go or whom to go to for help. I had no money, no work, no nothing, I can’t explain this . . .. (Participant, age 58)
After release from long incarceration, and in particular for those who participated in a prison-based substance abuse program, a void becomes present in their life; too much free time and endless possibilities. This is a deadly trap for recovering addicts who were just released. The void must be filled with meaningful action and routine, otherwise the risk of relapse and further criminal involvement becomes imminent. For this reason, it is essential that the prisoner undergo discharge planning—a formal individualized plan prepared by case management worker in collaboration with the individual inmate prior to his release from incarceration—to provide a much needed continuum that eases the transition from prison to the community while providing the released offender with information and sense of direction upon release. According to Mellow et al. (2008, p. 5), “[a] primary goal of discharge plan is to link inmates with appropriate health and human service providers in the community to address their problems early on, before they violate their conditions of community supervision, or be arrested for a new offense.” Accordingly, discharge planning is a vital effort that guides the about-to-be released inmate in the right direction, while enabling him to have a smoother transition experience and less stressful reintegration. In fact, some researchers argue that the entire rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration process should be coordinated with agencies in the community (Taxman, 2002; Young et al., 2002). Such coordination will promote collaborative efforts that will ensure a continuum of care during the reentry process for the purpose of successful reintegration. Indeed, Taxman argues that community supervision agencies and public health agencies many times work together to achieve the best outcome (also see Taxman, 2010). This was also suggested by many of the participants in this study—as presented earlier in Chapter 4—who reported being supervised in the community upon release as one of the major driving forces of their success (see Gideon, 2009). It is also interesting to note that many of the offenders interviewed for this study perceived supervision not as a punitive measure but more as a guiding
100
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
hand for the first few months after release, and thus as a useful source of information. Without sufficient information and direction, adequate supervision cannot be achieved, as having information is the first stage of gaining control. The transition from a nurturing intensive prison-based therapeutic community— as is the case for participants in this study—to the outside community results in a void for many transitioning inmates. After years of being incarcerated (on average participants in this study spent between 4 years to slightly over 15 years in incarceration; many times the Sharon prison was where they were serving their second or third sentence) and not having to take care of their basic needs during that time, they suddenly find themselves in a lonely battle for survival within a society that cast them out for many years due to their substance abuse and criminality. Without the proper information or guidance, this new situation can quickly become a breaking point. When looking at planned migration, different from unplanned migration or forced migration, we see that these immigrants tend to plan their migration by gathering as much information as they possibly can from both formal agencies and informal sources, as well as from family and friends. Immigrants may even travel to the destination country for surveying purposes (in prison terms this may be referred to as furlough for rehabilitation and release preparation purposes). It is for this reason that many immigrants settle in specific communities where they feel comfortable and where they can find the initial support and guidance they need. In that regard, they are similar to returning released offenders. If they are not well acclimatized in the first few months, they may return to their country of origin, although this may be problematic for many immigrants with low means. Consequently, it is known that the first few months through the first year is a critical time for both groups. It is a period of time that can be characterized by a learning curve where exposure—a stage that is usually associated with excitement and hope—and acculturation—a process in which members of one cultural group adopt the beliefs and behaviors of another group, in the assimilation process—are critical for survival. For many, the first few months are considered the “honeymoon” stage where possible difficulties may have not yet surfaced. However, while the honeymoon ends, the stage of exposure continues and changes in magnitude. In fact, exposure along with assimilation and acculturation are an integral part of a big adjustment process, which does not end after the entering phase. Both released inmates and immigrants experience similar difficulties in finding a residence, connecting to utilities (e.g., electricity, gas, telephone), getting their documentation in order (e.g., Social Security number, driver license), looking for employment, and often opening a new bank account, obtaining credit cards and a checkbook (all of which
Same Story, Different Players
101
were discussed earlier in this book). It is within this stage, as discussed earlier, that many experience an uphill battle against bureaucratic governmental agencies. Very often, this stage is accompanied by frustration, and it is at this particular point in the process that strain begins to show. Without proper guidance, many will experience high levels of stress, and for recovering drug offenders this may also be a factor in relapse. Indeed, for many immigrants the first few months through a year are a critical period that may affect their decision to stay or return to their home country. Although empirical evidence is absent, the author of this book learned through an informal discussion with people who work in the immigration field that many immigrants to the United States return to their home countries within a year after arrival; this was also the personal impression the author had as a newcomer to the United States.
Systematic Exclusion from Certain Jobs Blocked opportunities are another barrier faced by both newcomers and released offenders. Such barriers are well manifested by examining employment opportunities that are the legitimate means to achieve social mobility, and thereby secure social status. However, as noted in Chapter 6, for many returning inmates, finding a job is a difficult task due to lack of essential qualifications, poor social skills, and underdeveloped soft and hard work skills. In addition, the length of incarceration does not add to their ability to rely on a network that will assist in finding legitimate employment. More than that, many convicted offenders are banned from certain professions, or even by certain employers. According to Schmitter-Heisler (2008) such impediments continue to exist for immigrants to the United States. According to the middleman minority model, systematic exclusion of some immigrants— in particular Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Jews—from mainstream employment pushed them to establish their own marginal economy of small-scale traders and merchants to compete with the mainstream racially segregated economy (see Bonacich, 1973; Bonacich & Modell, 1980). This model may also assist us in understanding some of the difficulties faced by released offenders stigmatized by their label as convicted criminals or “ex-offenders.” Such stigmatization blocks them from obtaining legitimate employment in specific fields that are regulated by the state, which have imposed restrictions due to potential liability suits. In addition, some prohibitory regulations apply to professions and jobs that may expose vulnerable populations to risk such as child care, nursing, and home health
102
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
care. Ironically, other private sector jobs are also restricted albeit the fact that many prison-based vocational training programs are available to train inmates in such restricted professions during preparation for release. Such jobs include beauticians/hairdressers, plumbers, truck drivers, welders, and other maintenance jobs that require the applicant to have no criminal records, and, in particular, no drug convictions. Other white-collar professions such as pharmacy, optometry, and real estate may also be banned to people with criminal records (Petersilia, 2003; Lucken & Ponte, 2008; Leverentz, 2010). One of the participants in the present study experienced that even hotels would not hire him as a cook: I went to hotels and they didn’t hire me ‘cause I have a criminal record . . . the only thing I could do was to seek employment from private people in fast food places. (Participant, age 24)
As a result, lack of opportunity as well as low-quality employment, characterized by low wages and no prospect of job mobility, many are derived to the only solution they know in order to survive—committing further crimes (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Uggen, 1999, 2000; Uggen & Thompson 2003), which eventually leads them to their relapse as a result of both stress and involvement in criminal conduct and in the criminal arena. Evidence for this can be found in the following quotes: No one will hire me, and those who were willing offered me minimum wage, and that is pure exploitation . . . working from early in the morning to late at night everyday and earning minimum wage that is exploitation! (Participant, age 33)
Another participant was asked why he chose to open his own business, rather then being employed. He explained how the low wage could negatively affect his mental condition: Working for someone is not an option; it is too small for me. It will not fill me up. The money is too small, it will depress me. (Participant, age 34)
Minimum wage becomes a default for most recovering substance abusers and released offenders (Erikson, 1962; Uggen, 1999; Western, 2002), who also struggle to pay debts (as discussed earlier in Chapter 6), in addition to regular everyday expenses. For this reason, some participants who managed to reintegrate successfully explained why they chose to be self-employed rather than to become employed at minimum wage:
Same Story, Different Players
103
I did not see myself paying-off my debts as a wage-laborer. (Participants, age 28)
On the other hand, those who recidivated rationalized their actions in the context of low wages: Someone like me who spends 20 years in prison, if I am going to tell you that I will go to work for three or maybe four thousand Shekel [equivalent to slightly less than $1,000] a month, I will just be lying to you . . .. (Participant, age 47) If I am going to commit a crime I will have enough money to provide for my family and also to get high . . .. (Participant, age 40)
These individuals can be considered as retreaters who simply gave up the struggle for integration—an integration to the goals of the middle class. After all, the norm is middle-class goals as identified decades ago by Merton (1957). According to the ethnic enclave economy model developed by Portes during the second half of the 1980 s, a dual segmented labor market emerges thus emphasizing the existence of two separate and distinct employment opportunities, in particular one that is made of good high-quality jobs with decent wages, benefits, and secure employment and another that is made up of unskilled labor, poor wages, no benefits, and insecure employment (Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Manning, 1986; Portes & Rumbaut, 1990). This model thus can be implied to what released offenders are experiencing upon their release. In the United States, this is also associated with ethnic minority and, in particular, Black and Hispanic communities, as discussed earlier in this chapter. It is interesting to note that for many recovering substance abusers, a new employment potential becomes available. Many recovering substance abusers become drug counselors and mentors to other inmates and substance abusers. This was discussed in much detail in Chapter 7 and was identified as generative goal by Maruna (2001).
Stress and Anxiety During the initial stages of the rehabilitation process, individuals are faced with numerous stressful situations that are magnified in the reintegration process. Such stressors are associated with the transition from one location to another, and also associated with the expected transition regarding social expectations and socialization. Stressful situations are also shared
104
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
by immigrants during the initial stages of planning, stressors that increase when the departure date is nearing and may climax during the actual arrival at the destination. Those who have experienced migration know that the first few months are the most difficult ones and that if they were able to survive the first year then chances are good that they will be able to assimilate comfortably and successfully. Similarly, for recovering substance abusers who were recently released from prison, the transition to the outside—into an unsupervised community, without any mitigating and moderating buffers—may become the breaking points for substance relapse and further criminal involvement. According to Petersilia (2003), the fact that inmates are being released directly from incarceration into the community without any transitional planning, residential programs, or much needed housing and social support may account for the increase in the number of offenders that are being incarcerated after release. Consequently, substance abuse can be attributed to stress, as a stress reduction mechanism (sometimes described as self-medication). Studies conducted in the early 1970s found that American soldiers who used substances during the Korean and Vietnam wars did so as a way to deal with stress (Zinberg, 1972; Khantzian et al., 1974). Furthermore, from more recent studies, we know of other stressful social situations that were found to be positively correlated with substance abuse and self-medication/abuse of other psychoactive substances (see Serban, 1984; Hobfoll & Stephanes, 1990). Economic depressions, transition form one locale to another, and extreme changes in environment can all contribute as stressors. From interviews with participants in the present study, it became clear that different stressful situations had a negative effect on released offenders’ ability to maintain their abstinence. Those who relapsed to further abusing substances and were engaged in further criminal activity cited stress as the main factor, as one of the participants explains: At first I was happy, but slowly, slowly, the difficulties and burdens of life began to bother me, a tough situation at home, no provider. I wanted to work . . . but did not get the chance, and that is how I relapsed the first time. Then the fridge broke down and we did not have gas for cooking . . . and I started to be depressed. (Participant, age 40)
Another participant describes a difficult economic situation that translated into strain that pushed him back to the substances: The pressures from home and wife, the kids with their demands . . . I was making 90NIS [slightly less that $25] a day and this was not enough for a
Same Story, Different Players
105
household with three kids, and then the stress from the wife . . . as a result I returned to the drugs. (Participant, age 43)
This evidence relates to the discussion presented in Chapter 3, according to which the family may not always be a positive source of support and may also be perceived as negative source and as a stressor. But there are other stressors that are not always monetary related to money, as described by the following participant: When I got out I was engaged . . . I had a surprise with my fiancé, a situation that was emotionally very difficult for me . . . she was involved with someone else and that made me mad . . . I felt like the world was collapsing on me . . . I went to a friends house, someone I knew from work, and he was smoking grass, I was in a bad shape, I couldn’t see anything [could not distinguish right from wrong], and that one puff [smoking] from the grass was enough . . . afterwards I went home, I went to do what I know best . . . to use drugs. (Participant, age 33)
A similar experience was recorded by a different participant who explains: Once I got this hammer blow, the hit from the girl, that I loved so much . . . it seemed like nothing is worth while, I got nothing to lose, I lost her, I lost all the treatment, there was nothing worth being okay for . . .. (Participant, age 34)
Prisoners that are in their recovery process and are trying to reintegrate back to the normative community are faced with many barriers that may impede their rehabilitation and reintegration process. Such barriers account for an increased level of stress experienced by the recovering released inmate that may consequently push him back to his old ways and habits. Aside from financial and personal romantic stressors, there are other sources of strain and stress that reintegrating offenders must cope with. In previous chapters, the burden of assimilating/reintegrating to the job market and, therefore, to be able to pay off old debts such as alimony, restitution, court fees, and fines, were discussed. Additionally, the need to navigate through formal social institutions and social services without any assistance may, as discussed in Chapter 8, also promote stress and may result in simply giving up. However, other threats are lurking outside the prison walls for offenders during their reintegration. These may also be debts, but they cannot be paid off by installments or money, as these are debts to old friends in the criminal arena. For that reason, returning to the same community/neighborhood as before incarceration is many times a stressor by itself, as discussed earlier in this chapter,
106
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
because the recovering released offender may find himself getting involved with old acquaintances again, some of whom are active criminals and users. Many times a return to the old neighborhood is the result of a lack of social capital and a lack of alternative social resources for support, as explained by the following participant: My active [criminally active] friends contacted me although they knew I was clean . . . it was easy for me to talk to them ‘cause I know them from my past and they understand me . . . I began to hang with few of them, I felt strong . . . and before I knew it I was back under, using drugs. (Participant, age 39)
Another participant explains how his old friends knew his weaknesses and used him for their own gain: . . . they [drug dealers] came to me because they knew I was clean [not using], but they also knew I was broke, and they knew they could influence me so they put me to sell for them . . .. (Participant, age 58)
Similar situation was described by a different participant: Most of the time I was out on the street. There was this apartment where they used to sell drugs, I was hungry, I was tired . . . I came in and they were nice to me, they took interest in me, and then they told me that if I will help them sell I can stay with them, and so I helped them for four days and then I got busted . . .. (Participant, age 48)
It quickly becomes obvious that returning to the same environment from before the incarceration may promote stress and create unwanted situations that may result in relapse and criminal involvement. Moreover, the lack of adequate social support and the presence of many social and environmental stressors make old friends appealing to fill the void and provide support, although the relationships are negative and destructive. However, while released offenders tend to lack adequate social capital that has the ability to generate positive support, immigrants tend to be characterized by higher levels of social capital that stems from their persistence in achieving the goals of assimilation. In fact, immigrants’ high motivation to succeed may mitigate potential stressors, and shift the attention to developing innovative means to achieve desired goals (as discussed in the previous section on segmented employment markets and entrepreneurship). And as discussed earlier, in a way that differs from many cases of released offenders, immigrant family units (usually nuclear families consisting of husband, wife, and kids) become more cohesive due to their mutual goal of assimilation, and,
The Struggle to Survive
107
as a result, immigrants tend to enjoy positive family support as well as the support of the immigrant community where they tend to reside initially.
The Struggle to Survive Essentially, both migrants’ and offenders’ reintegration processes are linked to personal mobility that is related to social change. However, while for immigrants such change is related to modernization, improved social mobility, and an adventurous quest for better life, for released inmates such change is associated with a much deeper personal process that aims to change not just their social environment, but also their individual character. Nevertheless, both groups experience very similar barriers while trying to assimilate/integrate into their new environments. Both immigrants and released offenders rely on essential information that is expected to allow them easier transition and absorption in the receiving society/community whether it is housing, employment, or dealing with formal social and governmental institutions. Consequently, the role of advance information is central to a risk-avoidance strategy and has, consequently, been considered more extensively than the original human capital concept (as discussed in Chapter 6). Specifically, Boyle et al. (1998) argue that “the intervening role of a migrant’s level of information about relative opportunities in specific places, and accuracy of this information, can turn migration outcomes upside-down” (p. 75). Similarly, incarcerated offenders about to be released back into the civil community are in need of specific vital information that will ease their transition from incarceration back into the community. It is in this regard that discharge plans are developed and introduced to inmates before release. Such information is also crucial when dealing with bureaucracy and other formal social organizations, as discussed in the previous chapter. Information is also essential in reducing levels of stress, as the act of moving can result in elevated levels of anxiety and stress that can become disruptive in the assimilation/reintegration experiences (Boyle et al., 1998), for both immigrants who are recent newcomers to a community and released offenders who spent years behind bars. Another expectation shared by both groups is the hope for a better life, for a type of “rebirth” that is shared by substance abusers before their release and also by immigrants before their journey begins. This is the idealization stage, where both groups tend to drift in a fantasy of a better future, of a better life, and of all the things they can and will do once they arrive at their destination (or as in the case of incarcerated offenders, after release). Visher et al. (2004), on examining the challenges of released inmates in
108
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
both Baltimore and Chicago, reported that “. . . respondents ranked highly on measures of self-esteem, control over their lives, and readiness for change” (p. 6). Similar results were found in the present study on the Sharon prison therapeutic community (TC) graduates. For example, it was found that some of the participants were characterized by high self-esteem and a feeling of omnipotence. Such feelings lead to a quick fall, renewed substance abuse, recidivism, and future incarcerations. Feelings of omnipotence are also shared by many who leave their country of origin seeking to improve their lives. However, when faced with the harsh reality, feelings of anxiety and stress emerge, as described earlier. Participants in this study, who relapsed and recidivated, felt they have completed their journey and that they are immune from the trickeries of their relatively risky environments. In addition, community counselors and therapists testified that they had a difficult time dealing with the Sharon prison TC graduates as they thought they already knew everything and were invincible at the time of release. Such feelings and attitudes create difficulties in the reintegration process, in particular when a continuum of treatment and supervision are still needed. Although immigrants and released offenders may share similar experiences and barriers, one cannot ignore the fact that immigrants are selfselected group of people. No matter what the driving force for their migration was, immigrants tend to have significantly higher levels of motivation, with stronger will and determination, and this is maybe one of the key differences between the two groups. As discussed in Chapter 5, those participants who succeeded in their reintegration where characterized by a high level of motivation and were self-driven for success. In fact, looking at generations of newcomers, one can easily observe that most enjoy steep social mobility, by achieving many of the desirable goals in the destination community. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many newcomers become entrepreneurs as they are blocked from certain jobs and cannot rely on governmental assistance to bail them out. Consequently, they are determined to make do for themselves and not wait for external assistance. This results in what was described earlier as the middleman minority model, wherein newcomers are developing their own businesses while establishing their own marginal competing economy, an attribute, unfortunately not shared by many released offenders, who tend to rely on welfare and other social services for assistance. Differently put, while most immigrants are characterized by high determination to succeed, and they are ready to do anything in their power to do so, many released offenders are lacking such true determination, which can be translated as a lack of readiness to change and lack of fortitude to remain crime-free. This is a key quality that differentiates immigrants from released offenders. It may also account for the fact that
Discussion and Summary
109
many ex-offenders require and rely heavily on social services, governmental assistance, and supervision to overcome the hardships of their own acculturation and assimilation, while most immigrants are able to confront similar challenges on their own without any external governmental assistance.
Discussion and Summary “What does migration have to do with rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration?” Initially, the connection between the two may not be apparent; however, a more scholarly observation will reveal the many conceptual conjunctions of these two different research disciplines. The further we examine the hurdles of integration/assimilation, the more we learn about their similarities and the relevance of migration concepts and theoretical models to our ability to understand and explain the difficulties faced by released offenders, as the offenders’ experiences of transition may not vary materially from those of newcomers. Both migration and reintegration are highly complex, multi-faceted processes, as transition from one place to another rarely involves only one factor. Since the original data collection was conducted in Israel, it is imperative to introduce the following information for illustration: since its inception, the state of Israel has experienced massive migration waves, with a recent migration of 829,289 from Europe (majority from former Soviet Union) and another 44,405 from African countries (majority from Ethiopia) entering the country during a short period of time from the beginning of the 1990 s (Israeli Bureau of Census, 2008). By comparison, it was estimated the about 700,000 will be released from prisons during 2007 (Krisberg & Marchionna, 2006), and newer data provided by the American Bureau of Justice Statistics confirm this number (BJS, June 30, 2009). Such huge numbers of transitioning individuals—whether it be migration waves or released inmates—have a huge impact not only on the communities that absorb them but also on the transitioning individuals—immigrants or released offenders—and their ability to assimilate in the absorbing communities. Similar to what was documented by the reentry studies in Baltimore, Maryland, and Chicago, Illinois, immigrants arriving in to Israel settled in a few areas, and in some specific communities, thus creating cultural enclaves that many times prevented them from assimilating into the Israeli society. However, this case does not just apply to Israel; if we turn to examine migration patterns in the United States, we will see that immigrants from certain countries tend to settle in specific communities, often creating their own “country within a country.” For example, Chinatown, Spanish Harlem,
110
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
Little Italy, and many other neighborhoods that are characterized by a specific migration group/wave, such as the Greeks, Jews, Russians, Koreans, Chinese. As reported by Visher et al. (2004) and La-Vinge et al. (2004), released offenders tend to return to a small number of specific communities, thereby perpetuating existing social pockets of isolation that affect social mobility which, in turn, widens existing social cleavages. Such communities, as discussed earlier in this chapter, are already characterized by disorganization, damaged social networks and impaired social capital, and social decay which many times is governed by despair and criminality that are a direct by product of the above-mentioned characteristics and lack of social cohesion. The culture that dominates such communities is also a culture of prisons, where released convicted offenders become role models. Vigil (1988) illustrates this in his ethnography of gangs in Chicago, claiming that the dress code and prison culture invaded the streets and “. . . may involve an anticipatory socialization of adolescents through gangs in the community for the culture of prisons” (inside Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999, p. 133). To support this observation Conover writes as follows: One of its [massive incarceration] unintended results in the growth of socalled prison culture. The baggy low-slung pants popular among inner-city . . . teenagers are a fashion thought to have originated in prison, where inmates are issued ill-fitting clothes and sometimes no belts. Same with the sneakers-without-shoelaces look, a psych-ward regulation. (Conover, 2000, pp. 19–20)
Immigrant communities also tend to maintain dress codes (e.g., Hindi immigrants and those from African countries in New York City) as a symbol of their culture and religion; however, while migrant communities cannot and should not automatically be referred to as decaying communities, they are often segregated, as are disadvantaged local non-migrant communities. However, while the first are a result of a free choice and aimed to promote a positive social support mechanism—kind of a “we take care of our own” mentality—disadvantaged communities lack that important ingredient: support. Communities where the majority of young adults are either incarcerated or released from incarceration with prison records will experience difficulties in reviving and gentrifying their communities while pushing away the decay from within. Correspondingly, those returning from prison are less able to contribute to their communities and families as they lose their ability to provide guidance and support, in addition to the “stigma and shame of societal labeling” (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999, p. 123). Moreover, with the prison culture exported to the streets by large numbers of returning offenders, it has extended beyond
Discussion and Summary
111
the walls, and so have the negative and hostile attitudes toward established authority (Moore inside Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). Consequently, many communities that absorb released offenders experience a process of desertification, which expends to other neighboring communities. This is different from the gentrification process that occurs in many migrant ethnical enclaves. From the above, we can identify an analytical change that shifts the attention from focusing on released offenders and their efforts to adapt and reintegrate, to a macro-level examination that will take into consideration the interactions between released offenders and the general society, and the society’s reaction to released offenders. This is also due to the fact that many of the barriers identified tend to be associated with primary group affiliation, in addition to their association with lower class and certain ethnic groups. Table 9.1 summarizes the similarities and differences in barriers and difficulties examined so far and the corresponding social and individual coping mechanisms implemented by each of the groups. While the table is preliminary and conceptual in nature, it provides us with the ability to reflect upon the comparison and contrast between the groups, and how their similarities and differences affect reintegration and assimilation processes. Specifically, the domains presented in this table, on the left side of the table, are those variables or points of observation, which were covered by this chapter and previous chapters. The above table presents the juncture of experiences of released offenders and immigrants, while presenting the inherent differences between these two groups. The two groups overlap in some coping and adaptation modes, and the way in which each group reacts to the similar situations can be instructive. Examining the status markers, coping mechanisms, and solutions presented in this table can generate a renewed thinking about potential policies that may be developed based on practicable success. How an amalgam of experiences can be welded into a functioning social structure that will positively and normatively contribute to community life is an important inquiry that can ultimately guide public policy. Complying with policy makers’ false perception of public demand for a tough-on-crime stance (Gideon & Loveland, 2010), parole agency systems are synonymous with supervision and control and have taken a policing approach in dealing with its clients (Petersilia, 2003), resulting in parole officers becoming more “surveillance oriented” (p.77). Petersilia further argues that nowadays “parole services are almost entirely focused on control oriented activities” (ibid, p. 80). Such an approach has had dire consequences on reintegration of offenders and can be partially attributed to the increase in technical violations, and returning inmates, while failing to contribute to the idea of
112
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
Table 9.1 Barriers of integration and assimilation differentiated by status, coping mechanisms, and solutions Immigrants Disadvantaged poor – Usually first generation communities – Use as stepping stone – Gentrification of neighborhood
Community cohesion
– Ethnic enclave strong on support – Strong outer containment (Reckless, 1961) – Immigrant enclave provide Importance of strong informal source of formal external support and supervision sources of – Collective efficacy control Blocked/ – Split job market (Bonacich, segregated 1973; Bonacich & Modell, employment 1980; Schmitter-Heisler, 2008) – Entrepreneurship – Less reliance on governmental aid Family as source of – Family cohesion increases in support the stages of transition, thus providing necessary support Motivation
Expectations from society Source of information
Stress and anxiety
– High determination and motivation for quick assimilation and adaptation of society’s goals – Delayed gratifications – Very limited – Self motivated
Released offenders – Return to same disadvantaged communities – Tend to remain in the same community – Import prison culture to the community – Desertification effect – Disorganization, lack of cohesion – Weak to no outer containment (Reckless, 1961) – Need for parole and other external formal sources of support, guidance, and supervision – Unemployment – Reliance on welfare – Become mentors/ counselors, generative goal (Maruna, 2001)
– Family members who did not experience treatment tend to elevate stress, and may be perceived as negative source of support – High upon release but for most decreasing rapidly within the first few weeks, in face of barriers – Immediate gratifications – Very high – Expectations for forgiveness – In need of governmental assistance – Case management – Discharge plans – Social services need to “reach out” to clients – Information is obtained mostly through formal social services
– Informal sources of information – Reliance on family and friends, and other sources in the community – Information is obtained through networks of support – Cause for substance relapse – Mitigated by community – Renewed involvement in criminal support and guidance associations to mitigate stress – Higher inner containment that is a buffer from harmful – When succeeding, stress is mitigated by formal agencies such stressors as halfway houses, hostels, and – Stressors become motivators participation in self-help groups and driving forces of success
Discussion and Summary
113
rehabilitation. At the same time, substance abusers may be subjected to drug testing and are coerced to report to day centers, and they are rarely offered any actual guidance or treatment; many times they are even faced with barriers to engage in positive endeavors, such as obtaining legitimate employment. This reality must change, and a call for reinstating some of the more traditional aims of parole should be made. It is in this context that a suggestion is made to create a mechanism parallel to the parole agency that will function as an “absorption agent,” a reintegration counseling agency that will focus on preparing and coaching inmates during the transition stages—a few months before release through a year after release. Such a shift from the police officer mentality with a surveillance approach will enable a more proactive model, rather than a reactive one, where potential barriers and stressors are neutralized in advance, thereby reducing risks of relapse and recidivism as default coping mechanisms. Recently an employment oriented initiative called “Operation New Hope” in Jacksonville, Florida, aimed to do just that thing: provide employment assistance and guidance to released offenders (Corzine McMullan, & Chadeayne, 2009). A different, more wider, model is used to some extent by the Israeli Prisoners Rehabilitation Authority (IPRA) established by law in 1984, with a clear mission presented as follows: “1. Evolve a prisoner rehabilitation policy; 2. Rehabilitate released prisoners and help them integrate back into the normative society; 3. Help the prisoner’s family during his incarceration and after his release; 4. Develop and operate rehabilitation programs with all governmental and community agencies; 5. Supervise all the agencies that treat released prisoners and their families (including voluntary organisations); and 6. Create social awareness to prisoner rehabilitation and encourage voluntary activities” (See official IPRA website in English). Specifically, IPRA is required to meet and discuss reintegration plans with incarcerated offenders who completed at least two-thirds of their sentence. In these meetings, a potential discharge plan that is tailored to the individual needs of the offender is reviewed and prepared. A counselor from IPRA examines potential housing arrangements or solutions including halfway houses and hostels; employment solutions; and also the offender’s continuum of care. If released on parole, the inmate is mandated to visit the offices of IPRA for counseling and continuum of care. In addition, other traditional monitoring functions may apply, such as drug tests. The IPRA practices are more or less equivalent to the tasks of the American correctional case manager. Though the responsibilities of case management workers may vary from one correctional setting to another, case management usually “. . . consists of a social or mental health worker who secures and coordinates continued
114
9 Migration, Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration
social, mental health, medical, and other services for a client” MurphyHealey, 1999, p. 1). In the case of recovering substance abusers, the case manager is expected to coordinate continued treatment in the community upon release. By doing so, the case manager connects the inmate to available community resources and service providers, while also creating the opportunity to monitor the inmate’s use of such services. Using case management to prepare a tailored discharge plan may have the power to reduce some of the social, economic, and bureaucratic barriers that contribute to substance relapse and recidivism (see Murphy-Healey, 1999). Pogorzelski, Wolff, Pan, and Blitz (2005) state that “former prisoners return to their communities with significant disadvantages, [and thus] they need a great deal of assistance to achieve a level of stability and to obtain positive outcome” (p. 3). Accordingly, it is essential to use the time spent in imprisonment to work on a solid discharge plan, as the incarceration time provides a unique opportunity for intervention that can change the offender’s predisposition conditions while altering his lifestyle as suggested by Murphy-Healey (1999).
Chapter 10
Conclusion—Reintegration and Continuum of Care
Research on offenders’ rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration has come a long way in recent years, particularly during the last decade, which indicates a renewed focus of attention to the consequences of incarceration. Nevertheless, the questions that govern these studies always tend to focus on what happens to offenders in the receiving societies, and the externally measured economic, social, and political consequences of their reintegration. When sociologists, criminologists, and criminal justice scholars and practitioners focus primarily on the external consequences, it leaves very little room to examine how the offenders perceive their own reintegration process. Using the analogy of newcomers, or immigrants, this book has attempted to lay the foundation for what is hoped to be a fertile discussion. Both immigrants and released offenders are taking a journey that will bring them home—it is a long, tiresome, and sometimes very difficult process. The descriptions in this book were designed to show the parallels of the two processes and experiences, revealing opportunities that might result in the adoption of migration models to be examined and maybe also implemented for the benefit of released offenders’ reintegration efforts. The rehabilitation process is full of “ups and downs,” that begin while the individual is still incarcerated as Toch (1997, p. 85) observes: A point to keep in mind in thinking about the term ‘rehabilitation’ is the obvious fact that we deal with the offender in a prison. This fact has been translated into dicta such as ‘you can’t teach a man to fly in a submarine’ . . . prisons . . . are a far cry from communities, and therefore a poor place to rehearse community adjustment.
It is no surprise that many released offenders experience elevated levels of stress that threatens their ability to successfully reintegrate into the L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7_10, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
115
116
10 Conclusion
community as normative contributing individuals. The process for the participants in this study began with a prison-based detoxification and the furloughs inmates received in order to reunite with family and restore vital social networks. During their furloughs offenders are expected to make arrangements for their release, while examining their choices for treatment continuity. Usually, released offenders in Israel are aided by the IPRA who also refer them to specific centers, hostels, halfway houses for interviews and first exposure/impression. However, many of the participants in this study complained that the information provided to them was not sufficient, stating that they lacked a “guiding hand” when they finally were released. This is unfortunate because many released offenders, and, in particular, recovering substance abusers, experience difficulty in asking for help. Many of them are shy, introverted, and hold the tough machismo that characterizes offenders’ behavior as a protective mechanism. This type of personality barrier, and the difficulty in seeking help and assistance, prevented many of the participants in this study from continuing their treatment upon release. The potential effect on their reintegration was ominous, as they were unprepared to deal with the various barriers of reintegration. Again, it is important to note that many of the participants in this study, as well as substance abusers in general, are often characterized by machismo and antagonism toward institutions, hence it is essential that community-based organizations reach-out to those recovering substance abusers that are about to be released from incarceration. The organizations can connect the inmates, while they are still incarcerated, to an agency on the outside via a discharge plan, and they can aid in preparations with specific furloughs that are aimed to introduce the inmate to the continuum of care before his release. As noted in an earlier chapter, most of the participants in this study where characterized by low social capital as well as low self esteem (Fitts, 1972; Braucht, Brakarsh, Follingstad, & Berry, 1973; Serednesky, 1974) that many times prevented them from initiating contact with community-based organizations that could have provided them with assistance. This is another good reason for a therapeutic initiative that can reach out to those individuals in need during the entire reintegration process. Naïve as this may sound, one must accept the fact that many recovering substance abusers who are about to be released from incarceration are not ready for reintegration; they may have never integrated with the normative noncriminal community at all, as one of the interviewees, by the name of Race Sample told Hallinan: . . . you couldn’t rehabilitate a man if he had never been habilitated in the first place. (inside Hallinan, 2003, p. 216)
10 Conclusion
117
Since many incarcerated offenders never had many of the basic things that most of us take for granted, we cannot expect them to have an automatically smooth integration process, as Hallinan (2003, p. 216) states: . . . they’ve never had those basic things that most of us would probably agree are essential to developing a decent human being . . . to expect a man to find these things in prison is, on most days, laughable. Prison is the wrong place to try to habilitate anybody. The level of violence and fear and degradation that permeates most prisons makes a luxury of everything but survival.
Rehabilitation as the first step toward reintegration should take the above into consideration when preparing an inmate for a very stressful transition from incarceration to the free community, a transition that many times could result, according to some participants in this study, in their isolation from and fear of the outside world. Therefore, the transition from incarceration to the community as a recovering substance abuser may be characterized as a highly traumatic experience that promotes stress. This stress may later account for relapse and further substance abuse, the only way known to the addicted person (see Vaux and Ruggiero, 1983 on changes in lifestyle as correlated to stress and deviant behavior). It is also worth noting that many studies that aimed to examine the connection between strain/stress and criminality support the claim according to which high levels of stress without mitigating/ regulating factors—such as family support and stable marriages—may translate into criminality and with it substance and alcohol abuse (see Schlesinger & Revitch, 1980; Wills & Langner, 1980; Gore, 1981; Landau & Beit-Hallahmi, 1983; Landau & Reveh, 1987; Mawson, 1987). Additionally, findings from this study support the notion that many times participants felt they did not have a place to go, no point of reference, and no place that could absorb them immediately after their release. In this void many felt emptiness and despair. Faced with no place to go, loneliness and despair increases the chances of relapse and further engagement in criminal behavior, as the only perceived source of support and belonging. What is even more important is the fact that lack of support translates into lack of control that is associated with an idle lifestyle, a lifestyle that is, according to participants in this study, one of the main maladies of being an addict. In cases where the recovering substance abuser returns to live with his family as before his incarceration, it is expected that the family will be the initial and most powerful source of support and guidance, and prevent him from relapsing. Indeed, many studies that examined family support to released mentally ill patients that underwent rehabilitation confirm that the family had an important role in the successful rehabilitation (see Mannion
118
10 Conclusion
et al., 1996). Unfortunately, participants interviewed in this study also revealed an opposite scenario, in which the family and, in particular, the spouse became a negative source of support, and even an interfering factor in the reintegration process. Such evidence was explained in Chapter 3 by the fact that many family members have not participated in treatment or experienced treatment and counseling themselves, and thus are unable to identify with the new special needs that arise for the recovering substance abuser after his treatment. This was especially true when the spouse was not a substance abuser and had unrealistic expectations from the recovering spouse; expectations that resulted many times in elevated levels of stress that drove the participant into relapse as a way of escape (see Gideon, 2007). Usually the family does make an attempt to support the released family member who is also a recovering addict; however, without proper guidance and family therapy such a family reunion may become problematic, as old role expectations cease to exist. All of a sudden the husband wants to assume the role of the man of the house and get the respect he desires, while also becoming an active decision maker. This many times causes to role expectations to clash. In addition, a lack of trust characterizes many family reunions. After all, past experience taught them not to be too optimistic with the new “journey” despite the fact that they are happy to see their relative entering recovery and supportive of such effort to change. Such a lack of trust is rooted in years of disappointments over broken promises (Cheung & Cheung, 2000), and from first hand knowledge of the disease called “addiction.” It is unfortunate to note that from years of experience the family is the number one labeler, and they are the toughest to change and the last to remove the label (see Matsueda, 1992 on the labeling of children by their parents). Situational stress was another crucial factor that participants in this study had to deal with. From interviews with participants of the Sharon program it became evident that stress resulted from various impediments such as monetary debts, dealing with bureaucracy and other social institutions that demonstrated very little flexibility and sensitivity. Many times the recovering addicts were returning to the same physical and social environment from before the incarceration, and the result was often a renewed involvement with previous criminal peers and renewal of criminal associations. In addition, substance relapse may be invoked as a defense mechanism and, in particular, as an external expression that protects the “self” reducing stress and anxiety (see Khantzian, 1980, 1985; Penning & Barnes, 1982), while momentarily detaching the individual from the stressful situation he experiences (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Monetary debts as discussed earlier, and in more detail in Chapter 6, became a burden for many of the participants in this study. Even for participants who remained drug-free and crime-free, such debts prevented them
10 Conclusion
119
from opening a bank account—which is essential for paycheck transfer— leaving them without tools to manage their finances or save money, a situation often exacerbated by their minimum wage earnings and lack of job security. Such impediments also increased the accumulation of stress, although some of the participants managed to settle with their creditors and other agencies to whom they owed money. Some of the debts were not monetary, and involved paying old friends for previous favors. Consequently, returning to the same environment after release, and a reunion with old criminal friends, was a major factor contributing to recidivism and substance relapse, as described by some of the participants convicted of post release crimes. Engagement in the criminal arena and, in particular, in the drug landscape, became an easy refuge for those who were unable to cope with the hurdles of reintegration. This is particularly true for those who were released drug-free but with no means and many times with no place to go, especially after confronting a sometimes very obtuse bureaucracy. Many participants, therefore, expressed the importance of a continuum of treatment after release, as well as the importance of being supervised in the community for at least 12 months after their release (see Gideon, 2009). According to many of them, being monitored for the first year after release should be mandatory, and can help in alleviating some of the barriers associated with their transition and reintegration. The first year after release is a crucial timeframe, in particular for a recovering substance abuser who needs a guiding hand and support as was established in various studies (for example, see Kaufman, 1999, 2000). After a year passes with an individual being drug-free and functioning in the community, he can be labeled as a “success” and there is no point in furthering the intervention (Hassin, 1989) unless the individual shows signs of need. When asked for the best way to be supervised in the community, many of the participants thought that some form of residential care would be appropriate, in particular hostels and halfway houses, as they are highly intensive environments that monitor residents’ behavior while also providing them with support and the ability to continue their treatment in both individual and group sessions. Residing in a hostel or a halfway house enables the individual to gradually cope with his integration while being provided with the necessary support 24/7. It is no surprise that many of the participants who made the transition from prison to the community via a hostel or a halfway house referred to it as “home.” Within its walls they felt secured, loved, and a sense of belonging, things that they lacked in their past. No wonder many of the participants who managed to successfully integrate attributed their success to this environment—some of them came back for visits whenever they could. On the other hand, those who were referred to day-center clinics expressed their discontent with this practice arguing that it had an
120
10 Conclusion
obstructing effect on their ability to assimilate in the employment market, and many times erected unnecessary difficulties that were interpreted as punishments. Another important finding we discussed in these chapters was the need for successfully recovering addicts to mentor the next generation of recovering addicts, and the need to contribute and give back to the community by helping others as a mark of that success. By “passing the message” of salvation to others, many participants reported they had found their mission, and that they finally had a sense of accomplishment. This accomplishment was not just a simple by-product of being drug-free, but more than that, a result of being able to help others. By helping others they felt that they are repaying society, and earning their place in the community as respectable, trustworthy individuals. Moreover, their involvement in mentoring others also keeps the recovering substance abusers engaged in treatment. In a way, it is as if they never left treatment. In mentoring and counseling others the individual progresses anew through the treatment, while being a role model to others that share his story. Involvement with other recovering addicts and passing the message is considered to be an essential stage according to the Twelve-Step program, as it provides the individual with the opportunity not just to contribute to the community but also to regain his lost self-esteem from when he was an active substance abuser. For many recovering addicts, engagement in an activity such as “passing the message,” also enables them to sharpen their basic social skills, learning or relearning how to conduct conversations, and how to successfully explain and convince. These are skills that they need to assimilate in the employment market. Even such basic skills should not be taken for granted during the period of abuse, where most communication revolves around the substance and its effect. Taken further, mentoring, and counseling others promotes a sense of involvement. The individual has a stake in playing the role while maintaining his abstinence and being committed to the process of “passing the message” a process which becomes a focal concern in his daily routine, filling nearly every possible void that otherwise could have been filled by negative thoughts. As a result, relapse and recidivism are prevented (see Scott et al., 1994). It is the activity of passing the message and helping others that binds the recovering addict to the community, resulting in the prevention of returning to his old ways and habits. Participants who did not succeed in remaining drug-free explained their relapse by their lack of desire to cope with the ongoing struggles of the outside. For them the experience of transition was extremely stressful, with no achievement of goals in sight. These participants where characterized by high levels of retreatism, that according to Cloward and Ohlin (1960) can
Theoretical Synthesis
121
be attributed to the fact that only a few can overcome the barriers of social mobility, and within it of reintegration with the normative middle-class society as a drug-free individual. Hence, the relapse to the substance abuse becomes a refuge, comfort, and place of retreat. However, some participants also divulged that their relapse was an evidence of their immaturity and their personal inability to take an active part in the rehabilitation process or assume responsibility for their actions. It is within this context that Chapter 5 dealt with the importance of motivation as was perceived by the participants of this study. From the evidence presented in Chapter 5, it became clear that only when true motivation reveals itself can an individual substance abuser begin his journey. In the face of true motivation, the barriers of reintegration are more easily solved, and the recovering substance abuser presents proof of his sincerity and hard work to make a change. Those who were able to reintegrate did so by working hard, accepting any job offer that became available regardless of their skills, and continuing to participate in N.A. meetings and other support forums. According to the participants, addiction is a disease that lies dormant for life, and without proper motivation and the will to keep up the struggle the disease might resurface. Accordingly, sincere motivation and determination to change one’s life are the best indicators of a successful rehabilitation and reintegration. This is also the case of successful migration, when the newcomer is determined to do whatever he can to acculturate, adapt, and assimilate to the new community.
Theoretical Synthesis The main focus of this book was to describe the subjective experiences of rehabilitation and reintegration as they were perceived by the participants interviewed for the study. Using a subsample of the Sharon prison-based therapeutic community, we reviewed the contribution of the following main criminological theories: 1. Rational choice theories of lifestyle exposure and routine activities; 2. Differential association theory; and 3. Social bond and containment theories. Each of the above is a key element of “social capital” discussed earlier in this book. While each of the above theories focuses on a different aspect of individual behavior in the social arena, their combination enables us to provide a much better and more complete explanation regarding detoxification, rehabilitation, and reintegration after release. For example, Differential
122
10 Conclusion
Association theory explains how individuals become deviant when associating with delinquent/deviant significant others by learning and imitating their peers. Inversely, Social Bonding theory explains why some people refrain from committing crimes while attached to normative significant others. Additionally, one can argue that social bonding theory is essentially a rational choice theory, according to which individuals are motivated by weighing potential gains versus losses (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nagin & Paternoster, 1994) and, thereby, external control/supervision over individuals becomes available. This same principle is also at the heart of Life-style Exposure and Routine Activity theories discussed earlier in this book (Chapter 1), and later in this chapter. In fact, it can be argued that the mere change in lifestyle has an effect on daily routine—and thus routine activity—which presents a new set of norms that are shared by the new reference group of non-substance abusers in the normative society to which the individual wants to integrate and belong (Glaser, 1956). Therefore, as a result of this change an external circle of control is formed followed by an internal—individual—circle that emerges from the continuum of treatment. Later, that internal change becomes an integral part of the “journey” that is the choice of the recovering substance abuser to accept a new way of life while abandoning his old lifestyle. Embracing new alternative and normative sources of support nullifies those he shared while being an active substance abuser. This is the “commitment” concept that Hirschi (1969) discussed, and this concept is key to our understanding of the importance and relevance of differential association theory. This theory enables us to explain not only the initial exposure and engagement in deviant and criminal behavior, but also explains the success of alternative sources of support and supervision. Accordingly, the theories presented in Chapter 1, and earlier in this chapter, can be seen as connected and thus become relevant to the discussion of continuum of care—they describe social networks with positive social capital that enable the recovering substance abuser to cope with the various reintegration barriers while adhering to his rehabilitation. Successful reintegration of recovering released substance abusers is dependent upon two factors: sufficient information on the outside, which may be provided by discharge planning tailored to the specific needs of the offender before release, in coordination with case managers and agents in the community. Proper planning will enable the second need—continuum of care/treatment. Findings from interviews presented in earlier chapters in this book demonstrate the importance of continuum of care, and the importance of supervision in the community after release. A continuum of care, along with community supervision, is perceived as a stress regulator during the first year, when most released offenders are faced with transitional
Theoretical Synthesis
123
impediments of assimilation. By acknowledging this need another important support is being added to our understanding of social bonding theory, as well as to differential association, and the above mentioned rational choice theories. Such extrapolation calls for the synthesis of the theories in explaining the integration process of an inmate that began his recovery while incarcerated. Using concepts borrowed from theories on the sociology of migration, a better understanding of the social processes for recovering ex-offenders integrating back into the community may become available. Identifying available sources of community support and guidance contribute to the continuum of care and the assimilation process, while protecting the individual in his “journey” back home. The change in lifestyle and as a result the change in the daily routine, becomes possible due to positive social capital that becomes available because of the availability of social support—differential association to other recovering addicts and other normative members of the community, engagement in helping others, and so on—by which new labels are formed; labeling the addict as a recovering addict, a new confirmative status. As such, these new support networks also become paramount to the supervision agent that corresponds with Hirschi’s (1969) four elements of bonding: Attachment, Commitment, Involvement, and Belief. A change in support networks works best when the released offender, who underwent detoxification and rehabilitation while incarcerated, is being referred directly and immediately to an agency for a continuum of treatment while reintegrating to the community (as explained in the previous chapter under “absorption agents”). By making a continuum of treatment available in the community after release, a relief from stress and a barrier from criminogenic forces become available and control/supervision over the reintegrating individual become possible. Therefore, continuum of treatment is highly essential for the reintegration process of recovering substance abusers and also for released offenders that are not substance abusers but are in need of therapy (for example, mentally ill inmates and sex offenders). In this context I would like to offer the use of another term: “Personal Capital” which is not to be interpreted as resources such as education, employment, employability status, place of employment, or even level of income, or social capital. By high Personal Capital we refer to the resources and display of internal motivational strengths and determination that an individual possesses and are manifested in social skills and a high level of self-control that directly results from an external social control and adequate learning processes. This definition introduces a concept that incorporates the various aspects of self control, as suggested by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), along with different levels of social skills as described by (Hargie, Saunders, &
124
10 Conclusion
Dickson, 1981). Levels of social skills stem from the individual’s personality and are manifested in his motivation which is a by-product of external learning and control. The suggested above term should not be confused with personal capital as was discussed in previous studies like that of Nagin and Paternoster (1994) and McCarthy and Hagan (2001). The following figure, Fig. 10.1, describes the association between the theories presented and the continuum of care/ treatment discussed earlier. The importance of treatment continuum is illustrated in the below theoretical model. Many released offenders are assumed to be lacking positive personal capital; an emphasis is being drawn to the combination between continuum of care, motivation and self-control.
Continuum of treatment + positive personal capital (characterized by high level of motivation and high personal control)
Socialization to significant others which are normative sources of support + social control
Positive social capital
Normative life style, and routine activity
A successful reintegration in the community while abstaining from drug use
Fig. 10.1 Theoretical model—continuum of treatment in a theoretical context
Additional emphasis is given to the importance of individual ties to the community as generating normative social milieu that is essential to the creation and maintenance of positive social capital; social capital that accounts for both supervision/control and support. Such social capital can be positive only in the presence of continuum of treatment and when high motivation is in place, because most released offenders lack those inner factors of control discussed by Reckless (1961a, 1961b). Therefore, the combination of the above can be achieved in the presence of both external source of control and support (as discussed earlier in Chapter 4) and Personal Capital. In their presence socialization to normative non-criminal significant others begins to emerge, leading to a normative lifestyle and, consequently, to a normative daily routine, which eventually leads to successful assimilation/ integration. During the process of socialization acculturation takes part and new norms and values are learned. These guide/direct the individual in the assimilation process.
Theoretical Synthesis
125
The above model can be demonstrated on both newcomers and released offenders, as they transit from one social and cultural environment to another. However, and as stated many times before, released offenders return to essentially the same communities where they initially came from, whereas immigrants bring their own new culture and set of norms which may bring a new positive and vital breeze to disadvantaged communities. Additionally, both differentiate by their levels of determination and motivation to succeed. It is in this context that one must note that while continuum of care is irrelevant for most newcomers, it is highly essential for released offenders. This is due to the fact that many immigrants tend to be characterized by high determination and motivation to succeed, which is also the preventive measure that generates the inner containment circle (Reckless, 1961b). Their conventional belief and commitment to their goal of assimilation and success becomes their inner most powerful driving force that keeps them from “going bad.” On the other hand, released offenders do not posses these inner factors, and thereby in need of, what Reckless (ibid) called, outer containment, or external social control. Although Reckless refers to informal social control provided by organized communities, it can be easily translated to the need for continuum of treatment (supervision), as external means to generate positive personal capital. As discussed earlier, in Chapter 9, many released offenders tend to return to disorganized communities where informal supervision is lacking due to lack of community cohesion, which again, translates into poor/ negative social capital that is the predisposition for deviant/ substance-abusing routine and life-style. For that reason, inner containment, as manifested in positive personal capital, has the ability to prevent individuals from participating in undesirable criminal behavior, while keeping away from potentially harmful individuals, leaving room for the development of “healthy” supportive social relationships with normative significant others, and by that increasing one’s social capital. As a result, normative life-style is being adopted, thus advancing the acculturation process further. Differently put, while the experiences and community barriers of transition may be similar, solutions differentiate by embodied personal characteristics. Personal cognitive differences such as personal capital, inner containment, and social capital not only affect the transitioning individual, but may also have an effect on the receiving communities. It is important to note that the “social capital” concept is placed on a continuum axis that is affected by the level of socialization to significant others, and by the strength of the association to them (again Hirschi’s four elements of social bond: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief), in such a manner that provides the basis for control over the recovering substance
126
10 Conclusion
abuser. Additionally, one can argue that lifestyle and routine activity enable and foster social contacts with normative significant others, and as such becomes a supervising agent as well as a buffer against criminogenic forces. Consequently, a person’s lifestyle becomes a by-product of his social network as he becomes an active “player” within his new social surrounding. There are also sources of support which provide supervision/control, and achieve a double function of support and supervision, enabling Collective Efficacy—as defined earlier—which promotes informal social control and may also reduce triggers of crime by eliminating opportunities that rise from a decaying environment. Moreover, the availability of continuum of treatment must be accompanied by positive personal capital, which means high levels of sincere motivation that will direct the individual to continue with his treatment while on the outside, while altering his lifestyle, and while demonstrating a high level of inner-self-control within all its components (gratification deprivation, the ability to plan for the long term, consideration for others, etc.). Both immigrants and released offenders tend to experience transitional barriers, and their assimilation/integration process may be similar. However, they differentiate in their Personal Capital, and their level of determination to achieve the goals of society. This determination is manifested at the community level, where immigrants use poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods as their landing location and a stepping stone. Most immigrants leave these communities within few years, advancing to better suburban settings, while those who stay are usually first generation immigrants. As such they create a vibrant ethnic enclave that has a gentrification effect on the neighborhood. Logan, Zhang and Alba (2002) state that recent immigration waves are more diverse and include immigrants characterized by an initially high human capital that enables them a quicker and smoother assimilation without the need to land in poor and disadvantaged communities. Released offenders, on the other hand, may not be diverse in terms of their human and social capital, and thereby return to poor and disadvantaged communities with the same norms and culture that initially brought them to their incarceration. They tend to rely on welfare support and remain in those communities, many times reluctant, or even resistant to working their way out. Indeed, looking at blocked employment opportunities, we see that immigrants tend to develop a segmented job market of entrepreneurship, initiating their own businesses with minimal reliance on governmental assistance. Many times the assistance and support comes from within the family and the immigrant community. This can also account for the language barriers that many immigrants face, which prevent them from seeking governmental assistance. Such language barriers are less of an issue for released offenders.
Theoretical Synthesis
127
Another difference is regarding the availability of information. While immigrants are active in seeking information, and rely on any available source of information, incarcerated offenders are more passive, and tend to be characterized by the attitude that “someone needs to do this for me.” Such an approach is not conducive to a successful reintegration process, especially as it symbolizes the almost absolute reliance on welfare and governmental assistance, which as discussed earlier generate more stress and barriers (see Chapter 8). To assist incarcerated offenders in overcoming this difficulty, case managers are assigned to tailor a discharge plan that will guide the offender upon his release. However, an effort should be made to reach out to these individuals who are in need of assistance with the hopes that this assistance will generate determination. Let us take a moment to talk about this differently: two people get lemons (experiences and conditions), but one makes lemonade, while the other is upset and bitter. Why? Individual inherent characteristics distinguish these two sectors. Using concepts of the theoretical model presented in Fig. 10.1, immigrants—regardless of their migration cause—tend to be highly motivated, and posses higher levels of self-control. As a result, they tend to associate with appropriate significant others, who may also be immigrants with the same ethnic background—creating ethnical enclaves that have a gentrification effect on their communities. Logan et al. (2002) state that many newcomers will use ethnic enclave simply because they meet their needs for affordable housing, family ties, familiar culture and help in finding a job, while others simply prefer the ethnic neighborhood although they can afford other housing alternatives simply because they feel more comfortable in them. Consequently, positive social capital becomes available and as a result, the acculturation and assimilation processes allows improved mobility, which is usually characterized by relocating from the initial ethnic enclave to more stable communities and to the suburbs. This allows the next generation to complete the assimilation process, as described by the assimilation model. However, as mentioned previously, some immigrants will prefer the ethnic neighborhood as their final destination as it provides them with the comfort, and support they need, and within this context allow the next generation to assimilate while still maintaining their ethnical roots. It is hoped that readers of this book will be encouraged to further examine reintegration issues through the prism of migration concepts and models, while seeking further evidence to support the use of such models in the study of offenders’ transition from incarceration and their reintegration experiences in the community. This should be done by acknowledging the fundamental differences that exist between cross-border immigration and offender reintegration, where the former are characterized by higher levels
128
10 Conclusion
of motivation and determination to succeed. It should also be acknowledged that acculturation and assimilation among immigrants is viewed as a multi-generational phenomenon, whereas the same process in offender reintegration is expected to be achieved during the released offender lifetime. However, lack of proper acculturation to and integration with the normative non-criminal society may have a devastating effect on the following generations and consequently on community safety. While the theoretical model presented in Fig. 10.1 makes an argument for continuum of care as crucial factor in combination with positive personal capital, it also incorporates the most important ingredient of motivation, which was discussed in length in Chapter 5, and again in Chapter 9. Motivation is a fundamental aspect that accounts for the difference in outcomes despite the similar experiences both immigrants and released offenders encounter on their journey. As was demonstrated by the study participants and their quotes, higher motivation to succeed became the driving force enabling them to rebuild their lives. This is also the main characteristic of immigrants who are self-selected and are driven by high motivation and an exceptional drive to entrepreneurship, characteristics that many “persistent” (Maruna, 2001) offenders are lacking. Such virtues may have the ability to further explain the opposite destinies these two groups often have. It is hoped that future studies will challenge and examine the concept of “personal capital” introduced in this chapter in association with other migration concepts and theoretical models, testing the arguments of motivation, acculturation, and assimilation set forth in this book. Inmates suffering from substance abuse must have a transitional stage that can be used as a buffer/barrier to reduce the stressors and potential risk that may result from their exposure to the outside world. Consequently, it is crucial that community-based initiatives such as treatment providers and community supervision agencies be prepared to absorb these recovering substance abusers that are at high-risk of relapse. This can be done by preparing discharge plans while the inmate is still incarcerated (Osher, Steadman, & Barr, 2003). Unfortunately, only about 10% of the inmates released from incarceration in the United States receive such guidance or pre-release planning (Mellow & Greifinger, 2006). When successful, this experience is similar to that of immigrants that make plans before exiting their home country, where they are examining and establishing preliminary contacts with family, community, and even agencies before they arrive. Indeed, a study by Seiter and Kadela (2003), found that released inmates face many challenges such as seeking residence, securing employment, renewing family ties, and friendships. Consequently, inmates with substance abuse histories that are being released back into their communities after participating in a prison-based
Final Note
129
substance abuse treatment must have an effective discharge-plan that outlines their specific needs, and enables an easier transition where agencies in the community can better respond to their needs. Petersilia (2004) supports the notion that returning inmates need more help after their release because they may be isolated from their family and friends. Such isolation is not conducive to the reintegration effort, and may be an impediment that will result in relapse, as was documented by some of the participants in this study. Absorption centers are being used in Israel to ease migration difficulties for newcomers. A similar organization exists in New York—NYANA— and also aims to assist newcomers with legal issues, documentation, job training, and even counseling. Another initiative to assist reintegrating offenders with employment is being implemented in Jacksonville, Florida. Corzine McMullan and Chadeayne (2009) presented in a recent Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) conference the result of such center. According to their preliminary examination of “Operation New Hope,” such community based organization helps in alleviating some of the employment barriers released offenders encounter upon release. Similar approaches should become the rule and not the exception. It is recommended that such an approach, of creating not-for-profit community based organizations should be adopted when dealing with substance abusers. That this be done prior to their release and after release in a seamless manner is essential, as it has the ability to provide the individual with the guidance he needs. For this reason, hostels, half-way houses, and transitional houses for released offenders are found to be successful in the reintegration process, while reducing recidivism, and relapse.
Final Note The inception of the ideas presented in this book began more than a decade ago when I was first exposed to the topic of prisoners’ rehabilitation and their experiences of reintegrating with the normative society after release. It was only later, while immigrating to the United States that I began to realize that many of my experiences are similar to their own. Making the transition from one place to another is an extremely stressful event that requires long preparation, information, and planning. These are essential to reduce the stress that is a major component of this process. The hurdles of finding a job, dealing with local bureaucracy and governmental agencies, finding a residence, and penetrating the local culture to become a member of a community, becoming acculturated and successfully assimilating, are all orchestrated by one’s desire to succeed and never give up and the ability
130
10 Conclusion
to work hard in order to earn the trust of the community and your colleagues. This is how one begins an escalating mobility, and it is a process that both immigrants and released offenders experience. True, the initial reason for both experiences is significantly different and the reasons for migrations are far from being similar to those of returning offenders. However, their stories of reintegration tend to be similar, as are their experiences and struggles after release, as noted in this book. Also, different migration patterns and legality of migration play an important role in the assimilation process, and it would be wise to differentiate the experiences of legal migrations from those of illegal immigrants and refugees. Making such a distinction may sharpen our observation of the similarities in the assimilation/integration experiences with illegal immigrants being closest to released recovering substance abusers in terms of their integration efforts, as both are blocked, or banned from certain professions, both take residence in specific areas and housing, both are attempting assimilation in a segmented job market with minimum wage, etc. It is hoped that this book will generate a discussion on the topic of incarcerated substance abusers’ rehabilitation and reintegration process using a different, and somewhat untraditional, outlook in order to tackle some of the difficulties while drawing from the wisdom of a closely related field that has dealt (often successfully) with transitioning populations and their assimilation.
Limitations and Disclaimers The present study focused on substance-abusing inmates that participated in a prison-based therapeutic community at the Sharon prison in Israel. The unique characteristic of the prison environment (see Gideon, 2002; Shoham et al., 2006, and Gideon, Shoham, & Weisburd, forthcoming) and the special attention enjoyed by the inmates during that period of time, and by IPRA and other social services in the community may account, and even partially, for the low recidivism rate of less than 40% in a four year follow-up (see Gideon, 2002; Shoham et al., 2006) that characterized this sample. However, further examination, and comparison to other prison-based programs is warranted to examine the processes by which incarcerated treated substance abusers rebuild their lives, and examine their experiences of reintegration after release as dependent on program exposure. The aim of this book was to describe the challenges experienced by recovering substance abusers that participated in a prison-based therapeutic community, and were released back to the outside community. With that goal in mind an effort was made to incorporate concepts from sociology of
Limitations and Disclaimers
131
migration. Such concepts were used to draw preliminary attention to the possible development of a theoretical model that will use migration models in analyzing potential barriers to reintegration and, correspondingly, solutions that will be developed from such models and theories. Using a multidisciplinary approach can be beneficial to policy makers and professionals who seek to ease the transitions of released inmates, while maintaining public safety. With that in mind few caveats are warranted: 1. By no means does the idea of this book try to make an argument that immigrants are similar to offenders in their circumstances, or characteristics. The argument is that both tend to share similar integration/assimilation experiences. It is understood that immigrants differentiate by their status—legal, illegal, refugees, invited immigration and the like—however, and generally speaking both groups may experience similar barriers, challenges, acculturation processes, employment and wage barriers, dealing with social institutions, being isolated, and the tendency to concentrate in specific neighborhoods and communities. As argued in the previous chapter, both groups are in need of information to ease their transition and assimilation/ reintegration, and absorption. 2. As noted above, not all immigrants migrate for the same reason or under similar circumstances, and thus may not experience the exact same barriers. Specifically, one may argue that illegal immigrants tend to experience far more difficulties than legal immigrants, refugees, or invited immigrants. Consequently, it is possible that illegal immigrants may experience similar barriers to those experienced by released offenders. Future studies should make an attempt to address this fascinating similarity, while providing insight into governmental, and policy response to such issues. 3. This book deals with substance abusers, and their experiences of reintegration. Substance abusers may not have similar experiences as nonsubstance abusers (although different studies tend to document very similar experiences for most released offenders with sex offenders being the “odd men out”). However, those who succeed in their reintegration tend to share very similar characteristics, particularly higher level of motivation, better support system, and engagement in normative community activities. Using qualitative data of a small subsample rather than that of a statistically powerful sample limited the ability to make generalizations and to conclude with certainty (i.e., significant results). However, quotes cited in this book support the arguments presented, while inviting further research
132
10 Conclusion
to examine and elaborate on them. In addition, using the voices of the individual recovering substance abusers opened a window into their subjective experiences, which are full of insight; insight that can help practitioners better understand how to prepare their clients for their journey back home, while exploring relevant migration models that may account for some of the difficulties and challenges they face.
References
Agenew, R. (1997). The nature and determinants of strain: Another look at Durkheim and Merton. In N. Passas & R. Agenew (Eds.), The future of anomie theory (pp. 27–51). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Agenew, R. (2000). Sources of criminality: Strain and subcultural theories of criminality. In J. F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A contemporary handbook (3rd ed., pp. 349–371). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Agnew, R. (1999). A general strain theory of community differences in crime rates. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 123–155. Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., JR., Evans, T. D. & Dunaway, R. G. (1996). A new test of classic strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 13(4), 681–704. Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, R. L. (1997). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Alksne, H., Lieberman, L. & Brill, L. (1967). A conceptual model of the life cycle of addiction. The International Journal of the Addictions, 2(2), 133–145. Allen, R. (1981). The decline of the rehabilitative ideal: Penal policy and social purpose. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Austin, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Current trends, practices, and issues. Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 314–334. Bahr, S. (1979). Family determinants and effects of deviance. In W. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family. New-York: Free press. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598. Batchelder, J. S. & Douglas, D. K. (2002). Barriers to inmate education: Factors affecting the learning dynamics of a prison education program. Corrections Compendium, 27(2), 1–10. L. Gideon, Substance Abusing Inmates, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-09806-7, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
133
134
References
Beach, S. R. H., Fincham, F. D., Katz, J. & Bradbury, T. H. (1996). Social support in marriage: A cognitive perspective. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Saranson, & I. G. Saranson (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 43–65). New York: Plenum Press. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New-York: Free Press. Beckham, N. (2007). Motivational interviewing with hazardous drinkers. Journal of the Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 19(2), 103–110. Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 190–222). Newbury Park, California: Sage. Biernacki, P. A. (1986). Pathways from heroin addiction: Recovery without treatment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Blankenship, J., Dansereau, D. F. & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Cognitive enhancements of readiness for corrections-based treatment for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 431–445. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bonacich, E. (1973). Theory of middleman minorities. American Sociological Review, 38(October), 583–594. Bonacich, E. & Modell, J. (1980). The economic basis of ethnic solidarity: Small business in the Japanese American community. Berkeley and Los-Angeles: University of California Press. Boyle, P., Halfacree, K. & Robinson, V. (1998). Exploring contemporary migration. New JerseyPearson/ Prentice-Hall. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univesity Press. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press. Braman, D. & Wood, J. (2003). From one generation to the next: How criminal sanctions are reshaping life in urban America. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities (pp. 157–188). Washington DC: Urban Institute. Braucht, G. N., Brakarsh, D., Follingstad, D. & Berry, K. L. (1973). Deviant drug use in adolescence: A review of psychosocial correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 79(2), 92–106. Brochu, S., Douyon, A. & Normand, N. (1995). Consumption of alcohol, psychoactive drugs and drug related crime among young offenders. International Medical Journal, 2, 101–104. Brown, G. W. & Harris, T. O. (1978). Social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. New-York: Free Press. Brown, I. & Inouye, K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 900–908. Bryan, J. L., Haldipur, J. N. & Williams, N. (2008) “I’m Worth More than That!: Race and Ethnic Conflict among Low-wage Workers after Incarceration” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
References
135
Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA Online APPLICATION/PDF. 2009-01-29 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p241854_index.html Bull, P. (1983). Body movement and interpersonal communication. New-York: J. Wiley Publication. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm Retrieved April 14th, 2009. Burling, T. A., Reilly, P. M., Moltzen, J. O. & Ziff, D. C. (1989). Self-efficacy and relapse among inpatient drug and alcohol abusers: A predictor of outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 354–360. Bushway, S. D. (2006). The problem of prisoners (Re)entry. Contemporary Sociology, 35(6), 562–567. Carlson, B. & Cervera, N. (1992). Inmates and their wives: Incarceration and family life. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Chaiken, M. R. (1989). In prison- programs for drug involved offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Chanhatasilpa, C., Mackenzie, D. L. & Hickman, L. J. (2000). The effectiveness of community-based programs for chemically dependent offenders: A review and assessment of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 383–393. Chavaria, F. R. (1992). Successful drug treatment in a criminal justice setting: A case study. Federal Probation, 56(February), 48–52. Cheung, Y. & Cheung, W. M. P. (2000). Social capital and recovery from drug addiction: Findings of a study treated drug addicts in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Sociology, 1, 29–51. Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 31–48. Christiane, F. (1979). I, Christiane F. Adam Publisher (Translated from German By Gideon Turi). Clark, D. R. & Lab, P. S. (2000). Community characteristics and in-school criminal victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 33–42. Clear, T. R. (2002). Does getting religion rehabilitate offenders? In Perspectives on crime and justice lecture series. Washington, DC: Lecture series conducted at The National Institute of Justice. Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clear, T., Cole, G. & Reisig, M. (2006). American corrections (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R. & Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 335–351. Cloward, R. A. & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York: The Free Press. Cohen, A. (1972 Edition). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York: The Free Press, Simon and Schuster. Cohen, L. E. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
136
References
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 95–120. Collins, J. J. & Allison, M. A. (1983). Legal coercion and retention in drug abuse treatment. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 34(12), 1145–1149. Collison, M. (1996). In research of the high life: Drugs, crime, masculinities and consumption. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 428–444. Colvin, M. & Pauly, J. (1983). A critique of criminology: Toward an integrated structural-Marxist theory of delinquency production. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 513–551. Condelli, W. S. & Hubbard, R. L. (1994). Relationship between time spent in treatment and client outcomes for therapeutic communities. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11(1), 25–33. Conner, M., & Norman, P. (Eds.). (1996). Predicting health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Connerley, M. L., Arvey, R. D. & Bernardy, C. J. (2001). Criminal background checks for prospective and current employees: Current practices among municipal agencies. Public Personnel Management, 20(2), 173–183. Conover, T. (2000). Newjack: Guarding sing sing. New York: Vintage Press. Conrad, C. (1999) Soft Skills and the Minority Work Force: A Guide for Informed Discussion. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Washington, D.C. Corzine-McMullan, E. & Chadeayne, C. (2009). Re-entering the workforce: Issues surrounding the employment of ex-offenders in Jacksonville, Florida. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 11th. Boston, MA (March, 11th, 2009). Cotton, S. R., Burton, R. P. D. & Rushing, B. (2003). The mediating effects of attachment to social structure and psychosocial resources on the relationship between marital quality and psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 24(4), 547–577. Crutchfield, R. D. & Pitchford, S. R. (1997). Work and crime: The effects of labor stratification. Social Forces, 76(1), 93–118. Cullen, F. T. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Quarterly, 11(4), 527–559. Cullen, F. T. & Agnew, R. (2003). Criminological theory: Past to present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Dammer, H. R. & Fairchild, E. (2005). Comparative criminal justice systems (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. De Leon, G. (1984). Program based evaluation research in therapeutic communities. In F. M. Tims & J. P. Ludford (Eds.), Drug abuse treatment evaluation: Strategies program and prospect. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. De Leon, G. (1989). Therapeutic communities for substance abuse: Overview of approach and effectiveness. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 3, 140–147. De Leon, G. (1994). Therapeutic communities. In M. Galanter & H. D. Kleber (Eds.), The American psychiatric press textbook of substance abuse treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
References
137
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New-York: Plenum. Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S. & Petersilia, J. (1995). A dual experiment in intensive community supervision: Minnesota’s prison diversion and enhanced supervised release programs. The Prison Journal, 75(3), 330–356. Dull, R. T. (1983). Friends’ use and adult drug and drinking behavior: A further test of differential association theory. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74(4), 1608–1619. El-Bassel, N., Ivanoff, A., Schilling, R. F., Borne, D. & Louisa, G. (1997). Skill building and social support enhancement to reduce HIV risk among women in jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(2), 205–223. Erikson, K. T. (1962). Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 9(4), 307–314. Fagin, J. A. (2005). Criminal justice: 2005 update. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Farabee, D., Prendergast, M. & Douglas, A. (1998). Effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62(1), 3–10. Farrell, J. & Kachnowski, V. (2004). Community and housing. In C. Visher, N. LaVinge, & J. Travis (Eds.), Returning home – Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry Maryland pilot study: Findings from Baltimore (pp. 126–140). Urban Institute Policy Center: Washington DC. Faupel, C. (1991). Shooting dope: Career patterns of hard-core heroin users. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Felson, M. (1996). Preventing retail theft: An application of environmental criminology. Security Journal, 7(1), 71–75. Finn, M. A. & Willoughby, K. G. (1996). Employment outcomes of ex-offender job training partnership act (JTPA) trainees. Evaluation Review, 20(1), 67–83. Fiore, M. C. (2000). A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: A US public health service report. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(24), 3244–3254. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city (pp. 125–138). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Fitts, W. H. (1972). The self concept and psychology. Monograph IV. Nashville, Tennessee: Date Wallace Center. Fletcher, A. C., Newsome, D., Nickerson, P. & Bazley, R. (2001). Social network closure and child adjustment. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 500–531. Freeman, R. (2008). Incarceration, criminal background checks, and employment in a low(er) crime society. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(3), 405–412. Garofalo, J. & Gottfredson, M. R. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Garth, W. M., Wilkinson, D. A. & Poulos, C. X. (1995). The drug avoidance selfefficacy scale. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7(2), 151–163. Georgen, G. (Forthcoming). Prison-based educational and vocational training programs. In L. Gideon & H. E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry and reintegration. London: Sage Publishing.
138
References
Gideon, L. (2002). Detoxification and rehabilitation programs in prison and community support systems: Their contribution in reducing recidivism and drug use among released prisoners. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Gideon, L. (2007). Family role in the reintegration process of recovering drug addicts. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(2), 212–226. Gideon, L. (2008). Obtaining representative small sample in qualitative studies. In , L. Gideon (Ed.), Theories of research methodology: Readings in methods (Chapter 5, pp. 83–94). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company. Gideon, L. (2009). What shall I do now? Released offenders’ expectations to be supervised upon release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 43–56. Gideon, L. & Loveland, N. (2010). Public attitudes toward rehabilitation and reintegration: How supportive people of ‘getting tough’ on crime policies and the second chance act? In L. Gideon & H. E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration. Cp.2, 19–36. Sage Publishing, CA. Gideon, L., Shoam, E. & Weisburd, D. L. (Forthcoming). Changing prison to therapeutic milieu: Evidence from the sharon prison. The Prison Journal Gideon, L. (2009). Drug offender’s motivation perceptions: The role of motivation in rehabilitation and reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 43–56. Glaser, D. (1956). Criminality theories and behavioral images. The American journal of Sociology, 61(5), 433–444. Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency: Exploring the mysteries of human behavior. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 2, 32–47. Goldfarb, A. (1996). The therapeutic community myth: Substance abuse treatment as mechanism of socially controlling clients and counselors. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Gondolf, E. & Ackerman, R. (1993). Validity and reliability of an adult children of alcoholics index. The International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 257–269. Gore, S. (1981). Stress-buffering functions of social support: An appraisal and clarification of research methods. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events and their contexts, (pp. 202–222). New-York: Prodist. Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gregoire, T. K. & Burke, A. C. (2004). The relationship of legal coercion to readiness to change among adults with alcohol and other drug problems. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26, 35–41. Guerrero, G. (2010). Prison-based educational and vocational training programs. In L. Gideon & H. E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry and reintegration. London: Sage Publishing. Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
References
139
Hagan, J. & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 26, 121–162. Hagan, J. & McCathy, B. (1997). Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hairston, C. F. (1991). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for what? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 18, 87–104. Hale, D. C. (1988a). The impact of mothers’ incarceration on the family system: Research and recommendations. Marriage and Family Review, 12(1), 143 – 154. Hale, D. C. (1988b). The impact of mother’s incarceration on the family system: Research and recommendation. In F. E. Hagan & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Deviance and the family (pp. 143–154). New-York: Haworth. Hall, J. K., Evans, J. H. & Smith, L. G. (1989). A comparison of program administrator attitudes about Florida community control. Crime and Delinquency, 35(2), 303–308. Hallinan, J. T. (2003). Going up the river: Travels in a prison nation. New York: Random House. Haney, C. & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of the U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford prison experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709–727. Hanrahan, K., Gibbs, J. J. & Zimmerman, S. E. (2005). Parole and revocation: Perspectives of young adults’ offenders. The Prison Journal, 85(3), 251–269. Hans, G. R. (2002). Smoking cessation: Gender on the agenda. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 19(1), 71–85. Hargie, O., Saunders, L. & Dickson, D. (1981). Social skills in interpersonal communication. London: Croom Helm. Harlow, C. W. (1998). Profile of Jail Inmates 1996. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of justice statistics special report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Harvey, D. L. & Reed, M. H. (1996). The culture of poverty: An ideology analysis. Sociological Perspectives, 39(4), 465–495. Hassin, Y. (1978). Early release of incarcerated offenders – Success or failure?. Delinquency and Social Deviance, 6, 103–111, [In Hebrew]. Hassin, Y. (1989). Notes on rehabilitation of released offenders in the community. Studies in Criminology, 43–49, [In Hebrew]. Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W. & Catalano, R. F. (1995). Preventing substance abuse. In M. Tonry & D. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention (19, pp. 343–427). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hawkins, J. D. & Fraser, M. W. (1983). Social support networks in delinquency prevention and treatment. In J. K. Whittaker & J. Garbarino (Eds.), Social support networks: Informal helping in the human service (pp. 333–352). New-York: Aldine Publication Company. Hawkins, J. D. & Fraser, M. W. (1989). The social support of drug abusers before and after treatment. In S. Einstein (Ed.), Drugs and alcohol use (pp. 73–91). New-York: Plenum Press.
140
References
Henderson, M. L. & Hanley, D. (2006). Planning for quality: A survey for reentry initiatives. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 62–78. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R. & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Massachusetts, United States: Ballinger Publishing Company. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hobfoll, S. T. & Stephanes, M. A. P. (1990). Social support during extreme stress: Consequences and interventions. In B. R. Saranson, I. G. Saranson, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An international view (pp. 455–481). New-York: Wiley and Sons. Holzer, H. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects of less-educated workers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Holzer, H., Raphael, S. & Stoll, M. (2001). Will employers hire ex-offenders? Exployer prefereences, background checks, and their determinants. Working paper series. Los Angeles: University of California Center for the Study of Urban Poverty, University of California, Los Angeles. Horwitz, A. V., McLaughlin, J. & White, H. R. (1998). How the negative and positive aspects of partner relationships affect the mental health of young married people. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 124–136. Hough, M. (2002). Drug user treatment within the criminal justice context. Substance Use and Misuse, 37(8–10), 985–996. Husserl, E. (1965). Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy: Philosophy as rigorous and philosophy and the crisis of European man. New-York: Harper and Row. J. A. Inciardi (Ed.) (1993). Drug treatment and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication. Inciardi, J. A., et al., (1997). An effective model of prison – Based treatment for drug – involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(2), 261–278. Inciardi, J. A., McBride, D. C. & Rivers, J. E. (1996). Drug control and the courts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Inciardi, J. A. & Pottieger, H. E. (1994). Crack Cocaine use and street crime. Journal of Drug Issues, 24(1/2), 273–292. Inglodsby, B. B., Smith, S. R. & Miller, J. E. (2004). Exploring family theories (pp. 167–179). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing. Irvin, D. M. & Maag, J. W. (1993). Substance abuse among adolescents: Implications for at-risk youth. Special Services in the School, 7, 39–64. Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (2008). Statistical Abstract of Israel 2008. Figure 4.2, p. 231. (Retrieved from: http//www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton59/st04_02pdf Last visited July 13, 2009). Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority: Official website in English available at: http://www.shikumasir.org/index.php?page_id=77 (Last visited August 5th, 2009). Jacobs, P. (1991). Characteristics of the self in children of alcoholics: A review. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 8, 67–74. James, O., Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C. & Norcross, J. C. (1993). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. Journal of Addictions
References
141
Nursing: A Journal for the Prevention and Management of Addictions, 5(1), 2 – 16. Kachnwski, V. (2004). Employment and finances. In C. Visher, N. La-Vinge, & J. Travis (Eds.), Returning home – understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry Maryland pilot study: Findings from Baltimore (pp. 34–59). Washington DC: Urban Institute Policy Center. Kadman, I., Tichman, M. & Hofman, A. (1995). Borders instead of walls: Treating released substance-abusing offenders in hostels. Social Welfare, 15(2/3), 245– 258, [In Hebrew]. Kaufman, E. (1999). After drug treatment: Are 12-Step programs effective in maintaining abstinence?. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25(1), 93–116. Kaufman, E. (2000). Motivation for treatment in A prison-based therapeutic community. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26(1), 33–46. Khantizan, E. J. (1985). The self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders: Focus on heroin and cocaine dependence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1259–1264. Khantzian, E. J. (1980). An ego/self theory of substance dependence: A contemporary psychoanalytic perspective. NIDA Research Monographs, 30(March), 29–33. Khantzian, E. J., Mack, J. E. & Schtzberg, A. F. (1974). Heroin use as an attempt to cope: Clinical observation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(February), 243–250. Kidorf, M., Brooner, R. K. & King, V. L. (1997). Motivating methadone patients to include drug-free significant others in treatment: A behavioral intervention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(1), 23–28. Kingery, P. M., Mirzaee, E., Pruitt, B. E., Hurley, R. S. & Heuberger, G. (1991). Rural communities near large metropolitan areas: Safe havens from adolescent violence and drug use?. Health Values, 15(4), 39–48. Kingery-McCabe, L. G. & Campbell, F. A. (1991). Effects of addiction on the addict. In D. C. Daley & M. S. Raskin (Eds.), Treating the chemically dependent and their families (pp.57–78).Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. Klein, S. R., Bartholomew, G. S. & Hibbert, J. (2002). Inmate family functioning. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1), 95–111. Kleit, R. G. (2001). The role of neighborhood social networks in scatteredsite public housing residents’ search for jobs. Housing Policy Debate, 12(3), 541–573. Kling, J. (2000). The Effect of Prison Sentence Length on the Subsequent Employment and Earnings of Criminal Defendant. Woodrow Wilson School Economics: Discussion Paper #208. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D. & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 337–351.
142
References
Krisberg, B. & Marchionna, S. (2006). Attitudes of us voters toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry policies. Retrieved on May 9th, 2007, from http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2006april_focus_zogby.pdf. La Vigne, N. G. & Kachnowski, V. (2005). Texas prisoners’ reflections on returning home. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. La-Vinge, N. G., Mamalian, C., Travis, J. & Visher, C. (2003). Prisoner reentry in Illinois. Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute: April 2003. La-Vinge, N.G., Visher, C., & Castro, J. (2004). Chicago Prisoners’ Experiences Retuning Home (pp. 1–20). Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Landau, S. F. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1983). Aggression in Israel: A psychohistorical perspective. In A. P. Goldstein & M. Segall (Eds.), Aggression in global perspective. New York: Paragon Press. Landau, S. F. & Raveh, A. (1987). Stress factors, social support and violence in Israeli society: A quantitative analysis”. Aggressive Behavior, 13(2), 67–85. Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Laws, D. R. (1999). Relapse prevention: The state of the art. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(3), 285–302. Lawson, T. R. & Winstead, D. K. (1978). Toward a theory of drug use. British Journal of Addiction, 73, 149–154. Lee, C. (1984). Accuracy of efficacy and outcome expectations in predicting performance in a simulated assertiveness task. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 37–48. Leibrich, J. (1993). Straight to the point: Angles on giving up crime. Otago, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D. & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356–362. Leukefeld, C. G. & Tims, F. M. (Eds.) (1992). Drug abuse treatment in prison and jails. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Leverentz, A. (2010). Barriers to reintegration. In L. Gideon, & H. E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration. London: Sage Publishing. Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 215(4), 19–25. Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin (Ed.), Social support, life events, and depression (pp. 17–30). Orlando: Academic Press. Lipton, D. S. (1995). Effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. Darby, PA: Diane. Loeber, R. & Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. Crime and Justice, 12, 375–395. Lofland, J. (1969). Deviance and identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall. Logan, J. R., Zhang, W. & Alba, R. D. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 299–322. Loury, G. (1992). The economics of discrimination: Getting to the core of the problem. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 1, 91–110.
References
143
Lucken, K. & Ponte, L. M. (2008). A just measure of forgiveness: Reforming occupational licensing regulations for ex-offenders using BFOQ analysis. Law and Policy, 30(1), 46–72. Lynch, M. (1999). Waste managers? New penology, crime fighting, and the parole agent identity. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 839–869. Lynch, J. P. (2006). Prisoner reentry: Beyond program evaluation. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2), 401–412. Lynch, J. P. & Sabol, W. (2001). Prisoners reentry in perspective. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Mackenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–471. Maisto, S. A., Carey, K. B. & Bradizza, C. M. (1999). Social learning theory. In K. E. Leonard & H. T. Blane (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism. New-York: Guilford. Mannion, E., Phyllis, M. M., Draine, S. & Draine, J. (1996). A comparative analysis of families with mentally ill adult relatives: Support group members versus nonmembers. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 20(1), 43–50. Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.) (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New-York: Guilford Press. Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A. & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 294–320. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Publishing. Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577–1611. Matthews, R. & Pitts, J. (2000). Rehabilitation, recidivism and realism: Evaluating violence reduction programs in prison. In V. Jupp, P. Davies, & P. Francis (Eds.)., Doing criminological research (pp. 128–142). London: Sage publication. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: Wiley. Matza, D. (1969). Becoming deviant. Berkeley: Englewood Cliffs. Mawson, A. R. (1987). Transient criminality: A model of stress-induced crime. New-York: Praeger. McCall, N. (1994). Makes me wanna holler: A young black man in America. Vintage books. New York: Random House. McCarthy, B. & Hagan, J. (2001). When crime pays: Capital, competence and criminal success. Social Forces, 79(3), 1035–1060. McCord, W. M. & McCord, J. (1959). Origins of crime: A new evaluation of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. New York: Columbia University Press. McKay, J. R., Masito, S. A. & O’Farrel, T. J. (1993). End-of-treatment self-efficacy, aftercare, and drinking outcomes of alcoholic men. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 1078–1083.
144
References
McKay, J. R. & Weiss, R. V. (2001). A review of temporal effects and outcomes predictors in substance abuse treatment studies with long-term followups: Preliminary results and methodological issues. Evaluation Review, 25(2), 113–161. Meier, F. R. & Miethe, D. T. (1993). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: Review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 459–499). Mellow, J. & Greifinger, B. R. (2006). Successful reentry: The perspective of private correctional health care providers. Journal of Urban Health, 84(1), 85–96, Bulletin of the New-York Academy of Medicine. Mellow, J., Hoge, S. K., Lee, D. J., Natarajan, M., Yu, S. S. V., Greifinger, R. B., et al. (2008). Mapping the Innovation in Correctional Health Care Service Delivery in New York City. Available online at: http://www.jjay.cuny. edu/centersinstitutes/pri/publications/asp Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Merton, R. K. (1964). Anomie, anomia, and social interaction: Contexts of deviant behavior. In Clinard, M. B. (Ed.), Anomie and deviant behavior: A discussion and critique. New York: Free Press. Miller, D. B. (1976). A partial test of Oscar Lewis’s culture of poverty in rural America. Current Anthropology, 17(4), 720–723. Miller, M. (1985). Motivation for treatment: A review with special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 84–107. Miller, M. & Carlyle, S. (1992). The relationship between motivation and selfefficacy in competitive athletes participating in swimming, ice hockey, and basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15(3), 201–209. Miller, W. R. & Sanchez, V. C. (1994). Motivating young adults for treatment and lifestyle change. In G. S. Nathan & P. E. Nathan (Eds.), Alcohol use and misuse by young adults (pp. 55–81). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Moore, J. (1991). Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Morris, N. (1974). The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moss, P. & Tilly, C. (2000). Stories employers tell: Race, skill, and hiring in America. New York: Russell Sage. Moss, P. & Tilly, C. (2001). Stories employers tell: Race, skill, and hiring in America (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage. Mulvey, E. P. & Aber, M. (1988). Growing out of delinquency: Development and desistance. In R. L. Jenkins & W. K. Brown (Eds.), The abandonment of delinquency behavior: Promoting the turnaround (pp. 99–116). New-York: Preger. Murphy-Healey, K. (1999). Case management in the criminal justice system. Research in Action: National Institute of Justice: February, 1–12. Nagin, D. S. & Farrington, D. P. (1992). The stability of criminal potential from childhood to adulthood. Criminology, 30(2), 235–260.
References
145
Nagin, D. S. & Paternoster, R. (1991). On the relationship of past to future participation in delinquency. Criminology, 29(2), 163–189. Nagin, D. & Paternoster, R. (1994). Personal capital and social control: The deterrence implications of the theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology, 32(4), 581–606. Napier, T. L., Bachtel, D. C. & Carter, M. V. (1983). Factors associated with illegal drug use in rural georgia. Journal of Drug Education, 13, 119–140. Nelson, M., Dees, P. & Allen, C. (1999). The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in New York city. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Ortmann, R. (2000). The effectiveness of social therapy in prison – A randomized experiment. Crime and Delinquency, 46(2), 214–232. Osher, F., Steadman, J. H. & Barr, H. (2003). A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorder: The APIC Model. Journal of Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 79–93. O’Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behavior Research and Therapy, 23, 437–451. Page, C. R. & Mitchel, S. (1988). The effects of two therapeutic communities on illicit drug users between six months and one year after treatment. The International Journal of the Addictions, 23, 591–601. Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–975. Pager, D. & Quillian, L. (2005). Walking the Talk? What Employers Say versus What They Do. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 355–380. Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Park, R., Burgess, E. W. & McKenzie, R. (1925). The city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pearson, F. S. & Lipton, D. S. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatment for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 384–410. Penning, M. & Barnes, G. E. (1982). Adolescent marijuana use: A review. International Journal of the Addictions, 17(5), 749–791. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335. Petersilia, J. (2001). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and social consequences. Sentencing and Corrections, 9(11)), 1–8. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68(2), 4–8. Plotnikoff, R. C. & Nigginbotham, N. (2002). Protection motivation theory and exercise behavior change for the prevention of coronary heart disease in a high-risk, Australian representative community sample of adults. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 7(1), 87–98.
146
References
Pogorzelski, W., Wolff, N., Pan, K. & Blitz, C. (2005). Behavioral health problems, ex-offender reentry policies, and the ‘second chance act’“. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1718–1724. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1987). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential phenomenological perspective in psychology (pp. 41–60). New-York: Plenum Press. Portes, A. & Bach, R. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and mexican immigrants in the United States. Berkeley and Los-Angeles: University of California Press. Portes, A. & Manning, R. (1986). The immigrant enclave: Theory and empirical examples. In S. Olzak & J. Nagel (Eds.), Competitive ethnic relations (pp. 47–66). New-York: Academic press. Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley and Los-Angeles: University f California Press. Prochaska, J. O. & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In W. R. Miller & N. Heater (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change. New York: Plenum Press. Rankin, J. H. & Wells, L. E. (1990). The effects of parental attachment and direct controls on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27(2), 140165. Reckless, W. C. (1961). The crime problem (4th ed.). New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Reckless, W. C. (1961a). A new theory of delinquency and crime. Federal Probation, 25(February), 42–52. Regoli, R. M. & Hewitt, J. D. (1994). Delinquency in society (2nd ed.). New-York: McGraw-Hill. Ren, X. S. (1997). Marital status and quality of relationship: The impact on health perceptions. Social Science and Medicine, 44(2), 241–249. Robertson, I. (1987). Sociology (3rd ed., pp. 115–142). New York: Worth Publishers, Inc. Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Hesselbrock, M. & Wish, E. (1980). Vietnam veterans three years after Vietnam: How our study changed our view of heroin. In L. Brill & C. Winick (Eds.), The yearbook of substance use and abuse (Vol. 2). New-York: Human Sciences Press. Roman, J., Brooks, L. E., Lagerson, E., Chalfin, A. & Tereshcenko, B. (2005). Impact and cost-benefit analysis of the Maryland reentry partnership initiative (pp. 1–29). Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Ronel, N. (1993). Narcotics anonymous in Israel: Processes of self-help, and religious believes among substance abusers. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ronel, N. (1998). Narcotics anonymous: Understanding the “bridge of recovery”. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 27(1/2), 179–197. Rose, D. R. & Clear, T. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36(3), 441–479. Rose, D. R., Clear, T., Waring, E. & Scully, K. (2000). Coercive mobility and crime: Incarceration and social disorganization. Unpublished Manuscript.
References
147
Rutter, M. & Giller, H. (1984). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. NewYork: Guilford. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative process. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427. Sadowski, C. J., Long, C. K. & Jenkins, L. R. (1992). Does substance abuse treatment have self schematic effect?. The Journal of Psychology, 127(3), 323–327. Sampson, R. J. (1988). Facts, management and child development: Insights from social disorganization theory. In: McCord, J. (Ed.) Facts, frameworks, and forecasts: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 3, pp. 63–80). Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Sampson, R. J. & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–793. Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W. & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227(5328), 15, 918–924. Sampson, R. J. & Raundebush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651. Sampson, R. J. & Wilson, W. J. (1990). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In J. Haga & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London: Routledge. Schlesinger, L. B. & Revitch, E. (1980). Stress, violence and crime. In I. L. Kutash & C. B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety (pp. 174–188). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmitter-Heisler, B. (2008). The sociology of migration: From assimilation to segmented assimilation, from the American experience to the global arena. In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (2nd ed., pp. 83–111). London: Routladge. Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behavior: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Schwarzer, R. (2001). Social-cognitive factors in changing health-related behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 47–51. Scott, R. F., Hawkins, R. D. & Farnsworth, M. (1994). Operation kick-it: Texas prisoners rehabilitate themselves by dissuading others”. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(3/4), 207–215. Seiter, R. P. & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 360–388. Serban, G. (1984). Social stress and drug abuse. In G. Serban (Ed.), The social and medical aspects of drug abuse. New-York: Spectrum. Serednesky, G. E. (1974). Drug abuse as related to early childhood rearing practices. Addiction and Drug Abuse Report, 5, 3–5.
148
References
Shaw, C. R. & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shcham, Y. (1988). Comparison of two substance abuse treatment approaches in Israel, Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, [In Hebrew].Unpublished MA Dissertations. Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Shinitzky, H. E. & Kub, J. (2001). The art of motivating behavior change: The use of motivational interviewing to promote health. Public Health Nursing, 18(3), 178–185. Shoham, E., Gideon, L., Weisburd, D. & Vilner, Y. (2006). When ‘More’ of a program is not necessary better: Drug prevention in the Sharon prison. Israeli Law Review Journal, 39(1), 1–23. Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview. Silbert, H. M. (1984). Delancey street foundation: A process of mutual restitution. In A. Gartner & F. Riessman (Eds.), The self help revolution. New-York: Haman Sciences Press. Simoneau, H. & Bergeron, J. (2003). Factors affecting motivation during the first Six weeks of treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1219–1241. Simpson, D. F., Wexler, H. K. & Inciardi, J. A. (1999a). Drug treatment outcomes for correctional settings. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 291–293. Simpson, D. F., Wexler, H. K. & Inciardi, J. A. (1999b). Introduction. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 381–383. Sirken, M. G. (1979). Network sampling in health surveys. Health Survey Research Methods, pp. 136–140. The National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health and Human Services, Maryland. Smith, M. (2001). What future for ‘public safety’ and ‘restorative justice’ in community corrections?. Sentencing and corrections issues for the 21st century, No. 4. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Sommers, I., Baskin, D. R. & Fagan, J. (1994). Getting out of the life: Crime desistance by female street offenders. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 125–149. Spivak, P. (2000). A survey on the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment in the Israeli Prison System. Internal report prepared for the Israeli Prison System, the treatment and rehabilitation administration, substance-abuse unit. August 17th. [In Hebrew] Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication. Stall, R. & Biernacki, P. (1986). Spontaneous remission from the problematic use of substances: An inductive model derived from a comparative analysis of the alcohol, opiate, tobacco, and food/obesity literatures. International Journal of The Addictions, 2(1), 1–23. Stanton, M. D. (1972). Drug use in vietnam. Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 279–286.
References
149
Stoll, M. A. & Bushway, S. D. (2008). The effects of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(3), 371–404. Stone, W. (1997). Industry, agriculture, and education. In J. M. Pollock (Ed.), Prisons: Today and tomorrow. Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc. Gaithersburg. Stowe, A., Ross, M. W., Wodak, A., Thomas, G. V. & Larson, S. A. (1993). Significant relationships and social support of injecting drug users and their application for HIV/AIDS services. Aids Care, 5(1), 23–33. Sutherland, E. H. & Cressey, D. R. (1960). A theory of differential association. In E. S. Cressey (Ed.), Principles of criminology (6th ed.). Sutherland, E. H. & Cressey, D. R. (1978). Criminology (10th ed.). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippimcott. Sykes, G. M. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–673. Tarlow, M. (2010). Employment barriers to reintegration. In L. Gideon & H. E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry and reintegration. LondonSage Publishing. Tarlow, M. & Nelson, M. (2007). The time is now: Immediate work for people coming home from prison as a strategy to reduce their reincarceration and restore their place in he community. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 138–141. Taxman, F. (1998). Reducing recidivism through a seamless system of care: Components of effective treatment, supervision, and transition services in the community. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/treat/consensus/consensus.htm (Last visited July August 5, 2009). Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision – Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14–27. Taxman, F., Young, D. & Byrne, J. (2003). Offender’s view of reentry: Implications for processes, programs, and services. College Park, MD: Bureau of Government Research, Available at http://www.bgr.umd.edu. Taxman, F., Young, D., Byrne, J. M., Holsinger, A. & Anspach, D. (2003). From prison safety to public safety: Innovations in offender reentry. College Park, MD: Bureau of Government Research, Available at http://www.bgr.umd.edu. Taxman, F. S. (2010). Parole: Moving the field forward through a new model of behavioral management. In L. Gideon & H. E. Sung (Eds.), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration (Chap. 12, pp. 307–358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Terry, K. J. & Mitchell, E. W. (2001). Motivation and sex offender treatment efficacy: Leading a horse to water and making it drink?. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(6), 663–673. Tichman, M. (1995). To live on another planet: Alcohol, substances and human behavior. Ramot, Israel: Tel Aviv University Press, [In Hebrew]. Tichman, M. (1996). Substance and alcohol abuse: Causes and motivations. In D. Green (Ed.), Substances: Facts, questions and problems (pp. 77–109). Defense Office Publication, [in Hebrew]. Toch, H. (1997). Corrections: A humanistic approach. Albany, N.Y: Harrow and Heston Publishers.
150
References
Toch, H. (2001). Foreword. In S. Maruna (Ed.), Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuid their lives. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Tonry, M., & Wilson, J. (Eds.). (1990). Drugs and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Uggen, C. (1999). Ex-offenders and the conformist alternative: A job quality model of work and crime. Social Problems, 46(1), 127–151. Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529–546. Uggen, C. (2008). The effects of criminal background check on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(3), 367–370. Uggen, C. & Thompson, M. (2003). The socioeconomic determinants of Ill-Gotten gains: Within-person changes in drug use and illegal earnings. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 146. Valdez, A., Yin, Z. & Kaplan, C. D. (1997). A comparison of alcohol, drugs, and aggressive crime among Mexican-American, Black, and White male arrestees in Texas. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 23, 249–265. Vaux, A. (1988a). Social and personal factors in loneliness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 462–471. Vaux, A. (1988b). Social and emotional loneliness: The role of social and personal characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 722–734. Vaux, A. & Ruggiero, M. (1983). Stressful life change and delinquent behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11(2), 169–184. Veiel, H. O. F., Crisand, M., Stroszeck-Somschor, H. & Herrle, J. (1990). Social support network of chronically strained couples: Similarity and overlap. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 8, 279–292. Vigil, D. J. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Visher, C., Kachnowski, V., La-Vinge, N. & Travis, J. (2004). Baltimore prisoner’s experiences returning home (pp. 1–16). Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Visher, C., La-Vinge, N. & Travis, J. (2004). Returning home – understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry Maryland pilot study: Findings from Baltimore. Washington DC: Urban Institute Policy Center. Wakefield, M., Olver, I., Whitford, H. & Rosenfeld, E. (2004). Motivational interviewing as a smoking cessation intervention for patients with cancer. Nursing Research, 53(6), 396–405. Watt, T. T. (2002). Marital and Cohabiting relationships of adult children of alcoholics. Journal of Family Issues, 23(2), 246–265. Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12, 324–333. Weisburd, D., Shoam, E. & Gideon, L. (2002). Follow-up study among the Sharon prisoners 1994–1997. An Annual Report presented to the Israeli Anti-Drug Authority (In Hebrew).
References
151
Weisburd, D. Shoam, E., Ariel, B., Manspeizer, M. & Gideon, L. (2006). Follow-up research on prisoners released from the national rehabilitation center in HaSharon prison (1994–1997). Final report presented to the Israeli National AntiDrug Authority and The Prisoners Rehabilitation Authority (in Hebrew). Western, B. (2002). The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. American Sociological Review, 67(4), 526–546. Western, B. (2008). Criminal background checks and employment among workers with criminal records. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(3), 413–418. Western, B., Kling, J. & Weiman, D. (2001). The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 410–427. Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L. & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 321–336. Wexler, H. K., Prendergast, M. L. & Melnick, G. (2004). Introduction to a special issue: Correctional drug treatment outcomes – Focus on California. The Prison Journal, 84, 3–7. Williamson, C. E. (2009). Opting out of parole: The other side of the ‘revolving door’. Paper presented at: The 46th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Boston MA (March 11, 2009). Wills, T. A. & Langner, T. S. (1980). Socioeconomic status and stress. In I. L. Kutash & C. B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety (pp. 159–173). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Woldorf, D., Reinerman, C. & Murphy, S. (1991). Cocaine changes. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Wooldredge, J. D. (1999). Inmate experience and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 235–250. Wright, J. P. & Cullen, F. T. (2001). Parental efficacy and delinquent behavior: Do control and support matter?. Criminology, 39(3), 677–705. Yablonsky, L. (1989). The therapeutic community a successful approach for treating substance abusers. NY: Gardner Press. Young, D., Fluellen, R. & Belenko, S. (2004). Criminal recidivism in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27(4), 313–323. Young, D., Taxman, F. S. & Byrne, J. M. (2003). Engaging the community in offender reentry. College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research. Zinberg, N. E. (1972). Heroin use in Vietnam and the US. Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 486–488.
Author Index
A Aber, M., 7 Ackerman, R., 27 Agenew, R., 68 Agnew, R., 11–12, 78 Akers, R. L., 8–9, 38 Alba, R. D., 126 Alksne, H., 9 Allen, C., 45 Allison, M. A., 40 Arthur, M. W., 10 Arvey, R. D., 67 Austin, J., 39 B Bach, R., 103 Bachtel, D. C., 3 Bahr, S., 10 Bandura, A., 50–52 Barnes, G. E., 118 Barr, H., 128 Bartholomew, G. S., 25 Baskin, D. R., 4 Batchelder, J. S., 50–51 Bazley, R., 13 Beach, S. R. H., 27, 30, 34 Becker, H. S., 9 Beckham, N., 57 Beit-Hallahmi, B., 16, 117 Belenko, S., 39 Bergeron, J., 51, 56 Bernard, H. R., 19 Bernardy, C. J., 67 Berry, K. L., 116 Biernacki, P., 7 Biernacki, P. A., 53 Blankenship, J., 52 Blitz, C., 114 Blumer, H., 17
Bonacich, E., 101, 112 Borne, D., 51 Boyle, P., 59, 107 Bradbury, T. H., 27 Bradizza, C. M., 49 Braithwaite, J., 87 Brakarsh, D., 116 Braman, D., 25 Braucht, G. N., 116 Brill, L., 9 Brochu, S., 52 Brooks, L. E., 63 Brooner, R. K., 14 Brown, G. W., 30 Brown, I., 50 Bryan, J. L., 65 Bull, P., 17 Burgess, E. W., 93 Burke, A. C., 40–41 Burling, T. A., 51 Burton, R. P. D., 26 Bushway, S. D., 59, 67 Byrne, J. M., 39, 86–87 C Campbell, F. A., 26 Carey, K. B., 49 Carlson, B., 26 Carlyle, S., 50, 52 Carter, M. V., 3 Castro, J., 60 Catalano, R. F., 10 Cervera, N., 26 Chadeayne, C., 113, 129 Chalfin, A., 63 Chanhatasilpa, C., 39, 46 Cheung, Y., 2–3, 9–11, 13, 25, 28, 32–33, 56, 74, 77, 118
153
154 Cheung, W. M. P., 2–3, 9–11, 13, 25, 28, 32–33, 56, 74, 77, 118 Christian, J., 25–26 Christiane, F., 5 Clark, D. R., 1 Clear, T., 94–95 Clear, T. R., 93–94 Cloward, R. A., 3–4, 68, 83, 120–121 Cohen, A., 3 Cohen, L. E., 2, 6 Coleman, J. S., 2, 72 Collins, J. J., 40 Collison, M., 52 Colvin, M., 11, 29 Condelli, W. S., 40 Conner, M., 49 Connerley, M. L., 67 Conover, T., 110 Conrad, C., 66 Corzine McMullan, E., 113, 129 Cotton, S. R., 26 Cressey, D. R., 2, 8, 77 Crisand, M., 27 Crutchfield, R. D., 59 Cullen, F. T., 10–12, 14, 25, 27–28, 34, 47, 73, 77–78 D Dansereau, D. F., 52 De Leon, G., 10–11, 87 Deci, E. L., 49, 51 Dees, P., 45 Deschenes, E. P., 38–40, 44, 46 Dickson, D., 124 DiClemente, C. C., 42, 49–50, 78 Dinovitzer, R., 63, 93–94, 110–111 Douglas, A., 40 Douglas, D. K., 51–51 Douyon, A., 52 Draine, J., 33 Draine, S., 33 Dull, R. T., 6, 8, 13 E Earls, F., 93 El-Bassel, N., 51–52 Erikson, K. T., 102 Evans, J. H., 40 F Fagan, J., 4 Fagin, J. A., 96 Farabaee, D., 41 Farnsworth, M., 75
Author Index Farrell, J., 93 Farrington, D. P., 27, 34 Faupel, C., 53 Felson, M., 2, 6 Fincham, F. D., 27 Finn, M. A., 63 Fiore, M. C., 56–57 Fischer, C. S., 13 Fitts, W. H., 116 Fletcher, A. C., 13 Fluellen, R., 39 Follingstad, D., 116 Fraser, M. W., 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 77 Freeman, R., 67 G Garofalo, J., 2, 7 Garth, W. M., 50 Gibbs, J. J., 41 Gideon, L., 2, 22, 51, 60, 99, 113, 118–119, 130 Giller, H., 27–28, 73 Glaser, D., 9, 15, 77, 122 Glueck, E., 27–28, 73 Glueck, S., 27–28, 73 Goldfarb, A., 10 Gondolf, E., 27 Gordon, J. R., 11 Gore, S., 117 Gottfredson, M. R., 2–3, 7, 11–12, 27, 29, 46, 56, 87, 118, 122–123 Gregoire, T. K., 40–41 Greifinger, B. R., 128 Guerrero, G., 65 H Hagan, J., 9, 11, 27, 29, 63, 93–94, 110–111, 124 Hairston, C. F., 25 Haldipur, J. N., 65 Hale, D. C., 25 Halfacree, K., 59 Hall, J. K., 40 Hallinan, J. T., 116–117 Haney, C., 25 Hanley, D., 86 Hanrahan, K., 41, 44–45 Hans, G. R., 51, 56 Hargie, O., 123–124 Harlow, C. W., 60, 65 Harris, T. O., 30 Harvey, D. L., 84 Hassin, Y., 47, 119 Hawkins, J. D., 4–6, 9–11, 14, 47, 77
Author Index Hawkins, R. D., 75 Helzer, J. E., 12 Henderson, M. L., 86 Herrle, J., 27 Hesselbrock, M., 12 Heuberger, G., 5 Hewitt, J. D., 11, 27 Hibbert, J., 25 Hickman, L. J., 39 Hiller, M. L., 37–38 Hindelang, M. J., 2, 6 Hirschi, T., 2–3, 10–12, 15–16, 27, 29, 38, 46, 56, 62, 72, 77, 87, 118, 122–125 Hobfoll, S. T., 104 Hofman, A., 11 Holzer, H., 62, 65–67 Horwitz, A. V., 33 Hough, M., 41 Hubbard, R. L., 40 Hurley, R. S., 5 Husserl, E., 18 I Inglodsby, B. B., 31, 34 Inouye, K., 50 Irvin, D. M., 52 Ivanoff, A., 51 J Jacobs, P., 27 Jenkins, L. R., 51 K Kachnowski, V., 41, 60–63, 65, 93 Kadela, K. R., 40, 43, 128 Kadman, I., 11, 87 Kaplan, C. D., 52 Katz, J., 27 Kaufman, E., 42, 46, 119 Khantzian, E. J., 12, 104, 118 Kidorf, M., 14 King, V. L., 14 Kingery, P. M., 5 Kingery-McCabe, L. G., 26 Klein, S. R., 25, 34–35 Kleit, R. G., 13 Kling, J., 63 Knight, K., 37–38 Krisberg, B., 109 Kub, J., 57 L La Vigne, N. G., 41, 63 Lab, P. S., 1
155 Lagerson, E., 63 Landau, S. F., 16, 117 Langner, T. S., 16, 117 Larson, S. A., 74 Laub, J. H., 11, 27, 62, 69, 102 La-Vinge, N. G., 60–61, 93–95, 110 Laws, D. R., 51 Lawson, T. R., 12 Le Blanc, M., 27 Lee, C., 51 Leibrich, J., 51 Leverentz, A., 102 Lewis, O., 84 Lieberman, L., 9 Lin, N., 14 Lipton, D. S., 37–39, 44 Loeber, R., 27 Lofland, J., 85 Logan, J. R., 126–127 Long, C. K., 51 Louisa, G., 51 Loury, G., 94 Loveland, N., 113 Lucken, K., 67, 102 Lynch, J. P., 59, 61, 89, 95 M Maag, J. W., 52 Mack, J. E., 12 Mackenzie, D. L., 39–41 Maisto, S. A., 49 Mamalian, C., 93 Manning, R., 103 Mannion, E., 33, 117–118 Marchionna, S., 109 Marlatt, G. A., 11, 35 Martin, S. S., 37 Maruna, S., 9, 26, 28–29, 32, 34–35, 50, 53, 69, 74, 76, 78, 85, 103, 112, 128 Masito, S. A., 51 Matsueda, R. L., 118 Matthews, R., 18 Matza, D., 18, 34, 38 Mawson, A. R., 117 McCarthy, B., 9, 124 McKay, H. D., 93, 95–96 McKay, J. R., 51, 56 McKenzie, R., 93 McLaughlin, J., 33 Meier, F. R., 2, 6–7 Mellow, J., 99, 128 Melnick, G., 52 Merton, R. K., 3–4, 53, 61, 68, 83, 103
156 Miethe, D. T., 2, 6–7 Miller, D. B., 84 Miller, M., 50, 52 Miller, W. R., 51 Mirzaee, E., 5 Mitchell, E. W., 51 Modell, J., 101, 112 Moltzen, J. O., 51 Moore, J., 94, 111 Morris, N., 41 Moss, P., 65–66 Mulvey, E. P., 7 Murphy, S., 7 Murphy-Healey, K., 114 N Nagin, D. S., 3, 12, 27, 46, 56, 71–72, 122, 124 Napier, T. L., 3, 27 Nelson, M., 45, 62, 64, 68–69, 87 Newsome, D., 13 Nickerson, P., 13 Nigginbotham, N., 49–50, 52 Norcross, J. C., 78 Norman, P., 49 Normand, N., 52 O O’Farrel, T. J., 51 O’Leary, A., 51–52 Ohlin, L. E., 3–4, 68, 83, 120–121 Olver, I., 57 Ortmann, R., 51, 56 Osher, F., 128 P Pager, D., 67 Pan, K., 114 Park, R., 93, 95–96 Paternoster, R., 3, 12, 27, 46, 56, 71–72, 122, 124 Pauly, J., 11, 29 Pearson, F. S., 37–38 Penning, M., 118 Petersilia, J., 38–40, 59, 65, 67, 81, 89, 93, 98, 102, 104, 113, 129 Phyllis, M. M., 33 Pitchford, S. R., 59 Pitts, J., 18 Plotnikoff, R. C., 49–50, 52 Pogorzelski, W., 114 Polkinghorne, D. E., 18 Ponte, L. M., 67, 102 Portes, A., 103
Author Index Poulos, C. X., 50 Prendergast, M., 40 Prendergast, M. L., 52 Prochaska, J. O., 42, 49–50, 78 Pruitt, B. E., 5 Q Quillian, L., 67 R Rankin, J. H., 10-11 Raphael, S., 62 Raudenbush, S. W., 93 Reckless, W. C., 2, 12, 45–46, 56, 97, 111, 124–125 Reed, M. H., 84 Regoli, R. M., 11, 27 Reilly, P. M., 51 Reinerman, C., 7 Ren, X. S., 26 Revitch, E., 12, 117 Robertson, I., 13–14, 73 Robins, L. N., 12 Robinson, V., 59 Roman, J., 63 Ronel, N., 3–5, 9, 28 Rose, D. R., 94–95 Rosenfeld, E., 57 Ross, M. W., 74 Ruggiero, M., 26, 117 Rumbaut, R., 103 Rushing, B., 26 Rutter, M., 27–28, 73 Ryan, R. M., 49, 51, 57 Ryder, J. A., 94 S Sabol, W., 61, 95 Sadowski, C. J., 51 Sampson, R. J., 11, 27, 62, 69, 87, 93, 96, 102 Sanchez, V. C., 51 Saunders, L., 123–124 Sayer, A., 18 Schilling, R. F., 51 Schlesinger, L. B., 12, 117 Schmitter-Heisler, B., 101, 112 Schtzberg, A. F., 12 Schunk, D. H., 51 Schwarzer, R., 49–50, 52 Scott, R. F., 75, 120 Scully, K., 94 Seiter, R. P., 40, 43, 128 Serban, G., 3, 104
Author Index Serednesky, G. E., 116 Shaw, C. R., 93, 95–96 Shcham, Y., 3 Sherman, L., 39–41 Shinitzky, H. E., 57 Shoham, E., 45, 47, 55, 130 Shover, N., 28 Silbert, H. M., 10 Simoneau, H., 51, 56 Simpson, D. D., 37–38, 52 Simpson, D. F., 38–39, 42, 46, 52 Smith, L. G., 40 Smith, M., 87 Smith, S. R., 31 Sommers, I., 4–7, 11, 19, 53 Stake, R. E., 17 Stall, R., 7 Stanton, M. D., 12 Steadman, J. H., 128 Stephanes, M. A. P., 104 Stoll, M., 62 Stoll, M. A., 67 Stone, W., 64–65 Stowe, A., 74 Stroszeck-Somschor, H., 27 Sutherland, E. H., 2, 8–9, 77 Sykes, G. M., 27, 34 T Tarlow, M., 64, 66, 68–69 Taxman, F., 37–46, 49, 86–87, 99 Taxman, F. S., 86 Tereshcenko, B., 63 Terry, K. J., 51 Thomas, G. V., 74 Thompson, M., 59, 69, 102 Tichman, M., 1, 4, 11, 47 Tilly, C., 65–66 Toch, H., 76, 85–86, 115 Tonry, M., 52 Travis, J., 61, 63, 65, 93 Turner, S., 38–40 U Uggen, C., 59, 64, 67, 69, 102
157 V Valdez, A., 52 Vaux, A., 26, 33, 117 Veiel, H. O. F., 27 Visher, C., 60–61, 63, 93, 95, 107–108, 110 W Wakefield, M., 57 Waring, E., 94 Watt, T. T., 27 Weiman, D., 63 Weinstein, N. D., 49–50 Weisburd, D. L., 2, 130 Weiss, R. V., 51, 56 Wells, L. E., 10–11 Western, B., 63, 67, 102 Wexler, H. K., 37, 52 White, H. R., 33 Whitford, H., 57 Wilkinson, D. A., 50 Williams, N., 65 Williamson, C. E., 48 Willoughby, K. G., 63 Wills, T. A.., 16, 117 Wilson, J., 52 Wilson, W. J., 146 Winstead, D. K., 12 Wish, E., 12 Wodak, A., 74 Woldorf, D., 7 Wolff, N., 114 Wood, J., 25 Wooldredge, J. D., 1 Wright, J. P., 11, 27–28, 73 X Yablonsky, L., 10–11, 87 Yin, Z., 52 Young, D., 39, 46, 86–88, 94, 97, 99 Y Zhang, W., 126 Ziff, D. C., 51 Zimbardo, P., 25 Zimmerman, S. E., 41 Zinberg, N. E., 12, 104
Subject Index
NOTE: The letters ‘f’ and ‘t’ following the locators refer to figures and tables respectively
A Absorption agents, 68, 113, 123 and social support, 85–88 drug addicts, recovering, 87 informal behavioral obstacles, 86 “natural guardians,” 87 parole agents, 87 “potential links to the community,” 86 “radical change in behavior,” 85 recidivists vs. non-recidivists, 88 reintegrative shaming, 87 Sharon prison-based (TC) program, 88f Absorption centers, 129 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), 48, 129 Acculturation, 55, 91, 100, 109, 124–125, 127–128, 131 See also Migration ACJS, see Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) Act of despair, 81 Addiction, 2–8, 11, 13, 16, 27–29, 32–33, 38, 40, 61, 64, 69, 74, 76, 78, 82, 96, 118 according to participants, 121 addict labeled as “junkie,” 3 adolescent drug addiction desistance perceived self-efficacy, 52 criminality and, 16, 28–29 zigzag between addiction and nonaddiction, 32 AIDS/HIV, 94 American Bureau of Justice Statistics, 109 American Medical Association, 56 American Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 86 Amity in-prison treatment community (TC), 37 Assimilation process, 59, 68, 81, 91, 98, 100, 111, 123, 124, 127, 130 and integration, barriers of, 111t–112t
B “Backfire-effect,” 48 “Blaming the others”, mechanism of, 34 Bonding, elements of, 123 Bond Theory of social control, see Employment barriers; Social bonding theory Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93 C California Department of Correction, 62 Case management workers, 113–114 Chicago School and Zone Theory, 96–97 See also Migration “chronic strains”, low quality relationships, 26 “Coercive factors”/treatment, 40–41 Collective efficacy, 96–98, 126 “Commitment,” 10, 16, 62, 68, 72, 76–78, 122–123, 125 Communities, impact of migration, 92–97 assimilation model, 96 collateral damage due to incarceration and reintegration, 92 collective efficacy, 96, 97 community characteristics and criminal behavior, 93 dress codes for immigrants, 110 effects of returning inmates to their social environment, 94 high levels of incarceration, 95 Industrial Revolution, 92 massive foreign migration waves, 92 massive incarceration, effect of, 92 outer containment, 97 risk of sexually transmitted diseases, 94 role models, 94 “Zone Theory,” environmental theory of crime causation, 95–96
159
160 Community supervision, 43–46 “constructive activity,” 44 “Containment Theory,” 45 importance of, 43 “personal” and “external” control, 46 supervisory approach of, “the more the better,” 45 “Constructive activity,” 40, 44 Contacts, 21, 39–40, 63, 126, 128 See also Control and supervision Containment Theory, 2, 12, 45–46, 56 Continuum of treatment in theoretical context, theoretical model, 124f See also Treatment and outside supervision after release Control, achievement of, 16 Control and supervision, 38–41 coercive factors/treatment, 40–41 “constructive activity,” 40 contacts, 39–40 Intensive Supervision (IS), 38 recovery-oriented behavior, 40 “seamless system,” 39 Criminality and addiction, causes of, 28–29 emotional deprivation and abuse by parents, 28 lack of parental attachment and supervision, 29 Criminological theories, 121 See also Individual theories D Decaying communities, 92, 94, 110 Delinquent boys—the culture of the gang (Albert Cohen), 3 Desertification process, 92, 111 Deviance and Identity (Lofland), 85 Differential Association theory, 2, 7–10, 15, 77, 96, 121–122 Differential Identification Theory, 15, 77 Dress codes, immigrant communities, 110 Drug addicts, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–18, 26–31, 33, 35, 37–39, 42–46, 49–50, 52, 75, 87 See also Social institutions Drug dealing, 14 Drug landscape, 4, 6, 13, 16, 22, 72, 74, 119 Drug relapse, family criminal activity, 26–28 detoxification and rehabilitation, 28 family functioning and criminal involvement in adulthood, relationship, 27–28
Subject Index members in criminal activity, 27 youth’s attachment to parents, 26–28 Drug subculture, 5 E Employment barriers for both released offenders and newcomers, 66 financial problems, 60–61 General Equivalency Diploma (GED), 65 hard/soft skills, 65 importance of employment, rehabilitation process, 61–64 background check of job applicant, 64 lifetime earnings, drop in, 63 minimum wages and exploitation, 62 Social Bond theory “commitment,” 62 lack of skills, offenders, 65–66 migration, reasons for, 59 on-the-job training, 65 reducing recidivism, 59 trust issues, 67–68 “scarlet letter,” 67 “Ex-offenders,” 41, 62–69, 74, 101, 109, 123 Exposure associated with excitement/hope, 100 See also Migration “External” control, 46, 122 F Family criminal activity and drug relapse, 26–28 detoxification and rehabilitation, 28 family functioning and criminal involvement in adulthood, relationship, 27–28 members in criminal activity, 27 youth’s attachment to parents, 26–28 Family role in rehabilitation/reintegration process “blaming the others,” mechanism of, 34 causes of criminality and addiction, 28–29 emotional deprivation and abuse by parents, 28 lack of parental attachment and supervision, 29 “chronic strains”, low quality relationships, 26 family criminal activity and drug relapse, 26–28 detoxification and rehabilitation, 28 family functioning and criminal involvement in adulthood, relationship, 27–28
Subject Index members in criminal activity, 27 youth’s attachment to parents, 26–28 family support and assistance, 29 lack of knowledge, 29 “family training intervention,” 34 lack of trust, 32–34 “unhealthy relationships,” 32 neutralization technique by ex-addict, 34 spousal role in rehabilitation, 30–31 FST, 31 intimate relationship, 30 reuniting with spouse, 30–31 support during/after incarceration, 26 Family support, 11, 33, 73, 107, 117 and assistance, 29 lack of knowledge, 29 Family System Theory (FST), 31, 34 “Family training intervention,” 34 Financial problems, 60–61 See also Employment barriers Forced migration, 91, 100 FST, see Family System Theory (FST) G GED, see General Equivalency Diploma (GED) General Equivalency Diploma (GED), 65 Generative goal, 9, 78, 103 H Hepatitis, 94 “Home” (hostel or a halfway house), 119 Human capital, 72–73, 92, 107, 126 I Incarceration, 8, 25–26, 34, 39, 48, 53, 55, 61, 63, 65, 69, 82, 92–95, 98–101, 104, 105–108, 110, 114–118, 126–128 support during/after, 26 Industrial Revolution, 92 Informal “absorption” agents, 68 Informal agencies, 74, 87 See also Mentoring Inner containment circle, 124 Integration and assimilation, 98, 111t–112t exclusion from jobs, 101–103 blocked opportunities, 101 committing further crimes, reasons, 102 ethnic enclave economy model, 103 “ex-offenders,” 101 middleman minority model, 101 minimum wage, 102–103 information and discharge planning, 98–101
161 acculturation/exposure, 100 adjustment process, 100 stress and anxiety, 103–107 lack of adequate social support, 106 rehabilitation and reintegration process, barriers, 105 self-medication/abuse, 104 Intensive Supervision (IS), 38 IPRA, see Israeli Prisoners rehabilitation Authority (IPRA) IS, see Intensive Supervision (IS) Israeli Bureau of Prisons (IBP), 19 Israeli Prisoners Rehabilitation Authority (IPRA), 21, 23, 86, 113 Israeli Prison System, 47 J Juvenile delinquency, 93–94 L Labeling theory, 2 Language barriers, 126 Legal migration, 91, 130 Life-style Exposure (LSE), 6–7, 122 M “Making good,” process of, 76 Making it “on my own,” importance of, 54–55 Mentoring commitment, being role model, 76–77 informal social control, 77 destination, in search of, 75–76 generative goal, 78 informal agencies, 74 peer groups, 73–74 reason for abuse tough social background, 73 social capital, forms of examination, 72 Middleman minority model, 101, 108 Migration decaying communities, 110 dress codes, immigrant communities, 110 elements of assimilation/integration process, 98 information and discharge planning, 98–101 stress and anxiety, 103–107 systematic exclusion from certain jobs, 101–103 for established employment/family reasons, 91 impact on communities, 92–97 assimilation model, 96
162 Migration (cont.) collateral damage due to incarceration and reintegration, 92 collective efficacy, 96–97 community characteristics and criminal behavior, 93 effects of returning inmates to their social environment, 94 high levels of incarceration, 95 Industrial Revolution, 92 massive foreign migration waves, 92 massive incarceration, effect of, 92 outer containment, 97 risk of sexually transmitted diseases, 94 role models, 94 “Zone Theory,” environmental theory of crime causation, 95–96 legal, 91 reasons for, 59 struggle to survive, 107–109 feelings of omnipotence, 108 risk-avoidance strategy, 107 voluntary, 91 Motivation for change and self-efficacy contemplation stage, sincere motivation, 52–53 factors in treatment retention, 51 gaining employment as indication of motivation, 54 “offender’s personality,” 51 perceived self-efficacy, 52 reduction of recidivism, 51 “retreatist” type of personality, 53 immigrants’ high motivation, 106, 108 making it “on my own,” 54–55 treatment continuum, 124f Multiple property offenses, 83 N NA (Narcotics Anonymous), 3 “Natural guardians,” 87 Neutralization technique by ex-addict, 34 NYANA, New York, 129 O “Offender’s personality,” 51, 56 OJP, see American Office of Justice Programs (OJP) On-the-job training, 65 “Operation New Hope,” 113, 129 Outer containment (external social control), 12, 46, 97, 125
Subject Index P Parole agency systems, 89, 113 “Passing the message,” 76, 78, 120 See also Mentoring “Paternalistic” rehabilitation approaches, 42, 45 Peer groups, 4, 8–10, 71, 73–74 See also Mentoring Perceived self-efficacy, 52 See also Motivation Perception of motivation, reintegration process making it “on my own,” importance of, 54–55 motivation for change and self-efficacy contemplation stage, sincere motivation, 52–53 factors in treatment retention, 51 gaining employment, 54 “offender’s personality,” 51 perceived self-efficacy, 52 reduction of recidivism, 51 “retreatist” type of personality, 53 See also Motivation “Personal” and “external” control, 45–46 Personal Capital, 123–126, 128 “Personal control,” 45–46 Personality barrier, 116 Physical detoxification, 82 “Poor man’s disease,” 1 “Pre-contemplation stage,” 42, 78 Prison-based substance abuse program, 99 Prison-based therapeutic community, 17–19, 21, 49, 100, 121, 130 Prison-based treatment program, 76 Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority, 84 Prison system/bureaucracy, 82–85 low self-confidence of victims, reasons for, 82–83 mental rehabilitation, 82 multiple property offenses, 83 negative encounters, 84–85 Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority, 84 reintegration process, 84 retreatist pattern, 83 revulsion and distrust, 83 “them vs. us” approach, 83–84 therapeutic community (TC), 84 Psychological support system, 86 Q Quality employment, 69, 102 See also Employment barriers
Subject Index R Recidivism, 25–26, 37, 45, 48, 56, 95, 108, 113–114, 119–120, 129–130 reducing, 37, 39–41, 45, 47, 51, 59, 69, 87–88, 129 See also Employment barriers Recovery-oriented behavior, 40 Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI), 38, 86 Rehabilitation “paternalistic” rehabilitation approaches, 42, 45 process, importance of employment, 61–64 background check of job applicant, 64 lifetime earnings, drop in, 63 minimum wages and exploitation, 62 Social bond theory “commitment,” 62 and reintegration, 1, 7–8, 11–12, 17–19, 24–26, 35, 42, 45, 48–49, 52, 57, 60–61, 87, 105, 121, 130 reintegration process, barriers, 105 spousal role in, 30–31 See also Reintegration Reintegration and continuum of care monetary debts, 118 negative sources of support, 118 rehabilitation, 117 situational stress, 118 process, 87 family role, see Family role in rehabilitation/reintegration process and rehabilitation, see Rehabilitation Reintegrative shaming, 87 Retreatism/retreatists, 4, 61, 68, 120 type of personality, 53 See also Motivation Routine Activity (RA) Theory, 2, 6, 8, 15, 122, 126 RPI, see Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI) S “Scarlet letter,” 67 “Seamless system,” 39–40, 46 See also Control and supervision Second Chance Act, 86 Self-efficacy theory, 50–53, 56 motivation for, see Motivation perceived, 52 Self-medication, 104 Sharon prison-based therapeutic community program, 17–19, 21, 88f, 121 Skills hard/soft, 65
163 offenders, lack of, 65–66 Social background, 3–6, 71–73 Social bonding and social control, 10–12 “attachment” and “commitment,” 10 Social bonding theory, 2, 10, 27, 62, 122–123 “commitment,” 62 See also Employment barriers Social capital, 2, 6, 9–11, 13, 28, 33, 56, 68, 72–74, 77, 93–94, 106, 110, 116, 121–127 concept of, 125 forms of examination, 72 Social institutions, 81–89 absorption agents/social support, 85–88 drug addicts, recovering, 87 informal behavioral obstacles, 86 “natural guardians,” 87 parole agents, 87 “potential links to the community,” 86 “radical change in behavior,” 85 recidivists vs. non-recidivists, 88 reintegrative shaming, 87 Sharon prison-based (TC) program, 88f prison system/bureaucracy (drug addicts), 82–85 low self-confidence of victims, reasons for, 82–83 mental rehabilitation, 82 multiple property offenses, 83 negative encounters, 84–85 paralyzing effect, 83 Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority, 84 reintegration process, 84 retreatist pattern, 83 revulsion and distrust, 83 “them vs. us” approach, 83–84 therapeutic community (TC), 84 Social service delivery system, 81 Social skills, levels of, 123–124 Social support absorption agents and, 85–87 See also Absorption agents associated with stress/strain, 16 definition, 14 lack of, 7, 92–93, 96, 101, 106, 110, 117, 125 mechanisms, importance of positive, 110, 123 networks, 8, 12–16, 34, 46, 74 stress/strain, 16, 26 See also Trust Social tools, 2, 74 Society, structural elements of, 97
164 Spousal role in rehabilitation, 30–31 FST, 31 intimate relationship, 30 reuniting with spouse, 30–31 Spouses, definition, 30 Stress(ful) and anxiety, 98, 103–107, 112t, 118 situation, 11, 28, 78, 103–104, 118 societal conditions, 16, 104 transition from incarceration to free community, 38, 117, 120 Struggle to survive, 107–109 Substance abuse differential association (DA) theory criminal behavior, learning, 8–9 “differential identification” (Glaser), 9 peer groups, importance of, 9–10 LSE, 6 social background, 3–6 addicted subculture, 5 compulsive drug abuse and criminality, 4 high levels of egotism(self centeredness), 3 “junkie,” 5 low attachment, 3 low-economic status, 3 retreatism, 4 social bonding and social control containment theory (reckless), 12 coping with stress, reasons for abusing, 12 family support role in rehabilitation/reintegration process, 11 internal control or “inner containment,” 12 social capital, 11 social control elements, 10 Twelve-Steps and the N.A. program, 11 violent behavior, reasons, 12 social support networks “contagion agents,” 13 conventional social networks, 13 drug-free environment, 13 networks and support, difference, 14 “social network,” definition, 14–15 social support, definition (Lin), 14 stress/strain, 16 study of addicts before and after treatment, 14 “support network,” definition, 14
Subject Index Substance abusers, interview aim, 17 data analysis, 18 experiences, description, 18 interview process, 23–24 semi-structured, 19 IPRA, 21 participants sampling, 19–23 active addicts, tracking, 23 comparison of interviewees’ sample with total Sharon population, 22t demographic profile of inmates in Sharon prison, 20t former inmates, locating, 21 “friend,” 21–22 qualitative/quantitative research, 18 Supervision, need for after release, treatment and outside supervision, 41–43 “paternalistic” rehabilitation approaches, 42 “pre-contemplation stage,” 42 “Twelve-Step” program, 42 “backfire-effect,” 48 community supervision, 43–46 constructive activity, 44 Containment Theory, 45 importance of, 43 “personal” and “external” control, 46 supervisory approach of, “the more the better,” 45 control and supervision, 38–41 “coercive factors”/treatment, 40–41 “constructive activity,” 40 contacts, 39–40 Intensive Supervision (IS), 38 recovery-oriented behavior, 40 “seamless system,” 39 RPI, 38 stress during rejoining community, 38 Supervisory approach of, “the more the better,” 45 Support importance of, 25 networks, formal/informal, 71 T TC, see Therapeutic community (TC) Theoretical model-continuum of treatment in theoretical context, 124f Therapeutic community (TC), 10, 17–19, 21, 49, 84, 100, 108, 121, 130
Subject Index Treatment and outside supervision after release, 41–43 “paternalistic” rehabilitation approaches, 42 pre-contemplation stage, 42 “Twelve-Step” program, 42 “True motivation,” 13, 57, 121 Trust issues, 67–68 “scarlet letter,” 67 lack of, 32–34 unhealthy relationships, 32
165 “Twelve-Step” program, 11, 42, 120 U “Unhealthy relationships,” 32 V Vera institute, 62 Voluntary migration, 91 W Working-force culture, 65
