Impact of Family-Inclusive Case Management on Reentry Outcomes: Interim Report on the Safer Return Demonstration Evaluation

Fontaine, Jocelyn; Gilchrist-Scott, Douglas; Denver, Megan

doi:10.1037/e718172011-001

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, we know that incarceration disrupts social support networks, and the longer an individual is incarcerated, the more social support atrophies (Martinez & Abrams, 2013). Therefore, prisoner reentry researchers and program developers are increasingly designing postincarceration interventions with strategies that enhance naturally occurring (i.e., informal) social support (Byrne & Taxman, 2004; Fontaine, Taxy, Peterson, Breaux, & Rossman, 2015; Hanson & Harris, 2000; Petersilia, 2003; Pettus-Davis et al, 2015; Willis & Grace, 2009; Wright & Cesar, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of these social support–focused interventions concentrate on the period immediately after release—during the first 6 months after incarceration—when people are most likely to recidivate (Altschuler & Armstrong, 2001; Chung, Schubert, & Mulvey, 2007). However, evaluation results regarding the impact of such short-term social support interventions have been mixed (Fontaine et al, 2015; E. Sullivan, Mino, Nelson, & Pope, 2002; Wilson & Davis, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deterioration of Postincarceration Social Support for Emerging Adults

Pettus-Davis

Doherty

Veeh³

et al. 2017

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterioration of Postincarceration Social Support for Emerging Adults

Pettus-Davis

Doherty

Veeh³

et al. 2017

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the sample size for both the intervention and the research procedures is doubled, requiring larger intervention and research teams than would be necessary in individual-focused interventions. Relationship factors between participant samples can complicate responsiveness to and retention in social support intervention studies (Fontaine, Gilchrist-Scott, & Denver, 2011;Wilson & Davis, 2006). As a result, relationship factors must be addressed throughout the study.…”

Section: Challenges and Strategies Related To Rcts Of Social Support Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Randomized Controlled Trials to Evaluate Interventions for Releasing Prisoners

Pettus-Davis

Howard

Dunnigan

et al. 2015

Research on Social Work Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used to evaluate social and behavioral interventions designed for releasing prisoners. Objective: We use a pilot RCT of a social support intervention (Support Matters) as a case example to discuss obstacles and strategies for conducting RCT intervention evaluations that span prison and community contexts. Method: First, we summarize existing studies with current and former prisoner samples that highlight RCT methodological techniques. Then, we introduce the trial of Support Matters and discuss obstacles and efforts to overcome those obstacles. Results and Conclusions: We focus on factors related to sampling frame, participant eligibility, sample size, engagement, and attrition. We conclude with general recommendations related to project delays, compromised research sites, and retention. This article provides guidance based on lessons learned from an RCT of a social support intervention with releasing prisoners and their loved ones. Barriers discussed and recommendations presented here will help interventionists develop and implement RCTs in prison to community contexts.

show abstract

“…Conflict or mismatched resources of support providers and the needs of the support recipient leads to formerly incarcerated persons seeking out support from negative social network members (Martinez & Abrams, ; Seal et al., ). Given these complexities, intervention developers seek to better understand how to optimize interventions that enhance positive support of former prisoners (Fontaine et al., ; Pettus‐Davis et al, ; Sullivan et al., ; Wilson et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These trends have led researchers and social support intervention developers to seek ways to maximize and sustain positive social support from loved ones available to individuals after prison (Duwe & Clark, ; Fontaine, Gilchrist‐Scott, & Denver, ; Pettus‐Davis et al., ; Sullivan et al., ; Wilson et al., ). Social support interventions are “systematic activities designed to change the existing quality, level, or function of an individual's social network or to create new networks and relationships [to mobilize social support to achieve specific outcomes]” (Budde & Schene, , p. 342; Pettus‐Davis, Howard, Roberts‐Lewis, & Scheyett, ; Pettus‐Davis et al, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%