Deterioration of Postincarceration Social Support for Emerging Adults

Abstract

More than 2.5 million emerging adults (ages 18-25) are incarcerated annually and most do poorly after release. Social support after an individual’s release from incarceration is a critical protective factor against recidivism for emerging adults. However, little is known about the stability of support for emerging adults post incarceration. This study uses hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine whether social support declines over time after incarceration and how change in support may vary by incarceration length. Our findings show that, while a nonincarcerated group of justice-involved emerging adults experience relatively stable social support, there are negative and volatile effects of social support among their incarcerated counterparts. Moreover, longer incarceration stays are related to greater deterioration of support over time after community reentry for emerging adults. Study findings advance the field of postincarceration intervention development by responding to the challenge of determining the appropriate targets and length of interventions designed for emerging adults.

Receiving Social Support after Short-term Confinement: How Support Pre- and During-confinement Contribute

“…This is a noteworthy contribution because only one longitudinal study, to our knowledge, has examined the dynamic relationship between support providers after confinement. Pettus-Davis and colleagues (2017) found that increases in family (mostly expressive) support corresponded with decreases in nonfamily support and vice versa. In examining more precise forms of support received through relationships, we found that parents and partners substitute for each other when providing instrumental support (partially supporting Hypothesis 4a).…”

“…Empirical evidence on the interrelationship of support providers after confinement is almost nonexistent, with only one study in Table 1 examining this area. Pettus-Davis and colleagues (2017) found a substitution effect between family and nonfamily providers of support to young adults across multiple waves postconfinement. Their measure of support was blended—comprised primarily of expressive support elements (e.g., talk about trouble, important decisions; care about your feelings), but also some instrumental (e.g., depend on for help).…”

“…The recall frame was “during the 6 months prior to your arrest” at P1 and “in the past 6 months” for R1 (i.e., at the wave six month after release). Using the core discussion network directly captures the substance of emotional support that is often operationalized by asking whether respondents have someone to “talk to” or “turn to” (Barrick et al 2014; La Vigne et al 2005; Meyers et al 2017; Pettus-Davis et al 2017; Spjeldnes et al 2012; Turanovic and Tasca 2017; Wallace et al 2016). Members of core networks are often the main providers of support (McPherson et al 2006; Volker et al 2016), while listening has been theoretically linked with other supportive functions, “such as love, trust, intimacy, and attachment” (Vaux 1988:18).…”

“…Preconfinement support is rarely measured, yet is likely a key contributor to who is visited (e.g., Atkin-Plunk and Armstrong 2018). Additionally, our study contributes to the limited literature on the role of relationships and how support after confinement is interrelated across providers by examining whether it operates in tandem or fluctuates independently (see Pettus-Davis et al 2017).…”

“…First, only a handful of studies in this area have longitudinal designs with multiple waves (Barrick et al 2014; Brunton-Smith and McCarthy 2017; La Vigne et al 2005; Mowen and Visher 2015; Pettus-Davis et al 2017; Wallace et al 2016; see Table 1). Further, only two have pre-, during-, and postconfinement support measures (Brunton-Smith and McCarthy 2017; La Vigne et al 2005).…”