Community Supports Necessary to Repair Harm

The pathway to repairing community harm at the end of an era of mass incarceration attends to the ecological mechanisms transmitting the impact within a community. Community supports are essential to prevent contact with the criminal justice system and to help returning citizens adapt in ways that prevent prison cycling.

Institutional Resources. Institutional resources are vital community structures with potential to improve the quality of life for all residents, to prevent crime, and to support individuals returning home from prison. Communities with strong organizations (e.g., nonprofits, religious institutions, civic groups) are able to promote prosocial norms and enhance connectivity among residents. Institutional resources improve the collective social capital of a neighborhood, which can further act as an antidote to deviance and crime. Community institutions act as agents of social integration. Following this logic, strategies that enhance the amount of local resources in high-stakes communities could effectively improve public safety and reduce the number of individuals entering into the criminal justice system.

More recently, scholars have begun investigating whether or not community resources impact recidivism and reoffending. One study conducted in 2010 examined California parolees from 2005 to 2006. Findings indicated that an increase in the presence of social services (within 2 miles of a residential address) decreases the likelihood of recidivating by 41% (Hipp, Petersilia, & Turner, 2010). Community institutional supports with particular importance for returning citizens include job training and employment agencies, shelters, food banks, educational institutions, health care, and childcare.

Repairing the Social Bonds in Community. Concentrated mass incarceration substantially strains social networks in high-stakes communities. Upon reintegration, the formerly incarcerated bear a heavily stigmatized status that impairs their capacity to rebuild positive social bonds, compounded by a forced extraction and an absence from their previous networks. Community social bonds to both individuals and prosocial institutions play a major role in behavior reform and exiting criminal careers. These connections place individuals in contact with citizens engaging in conforming activities (e.g., working, attending school). Through these social bonds, individuals develop social skills necessary to integrate into other social structures (educational institutions, workplace, religious institutions), and they gain support and social capital. Most individuals experience a reward for positive social bonding such as earning wages or obtaining a degree. These awards strengthen their social bond, which thus increases their commitment to conforming behavior.

Community supports that facilitate the reforming of social bonds are vital for returning citizens. The family unit of the formerly incarcerated is a logical target for intervention efforts. Families are the primary providers of housing and financial support for offenders after release. Families typically assist with employment, transportation, and emotional support as well. A 2004 Urban Institute Report examining the Chicago prisoner’s experience of returning home indicates that programmatic interventions integrating family members and connecting them to local institutions demonstrate promising reductions in recidivism. Intervention research developed in this regard includes offender and family assessments (evaluating domains of family support and prosocial support) and different evidence-based tools to assess the quantity and quality of social bonds. These tools assist correctional staff and community supports in identifying strengths in the social network and family relationship of returning citizens.

Build Collective Citizenship in Community. Community supports that empower residents to take control of their lives and environment help to build collective efficacy. Many community- based organizations use an empowerment lens to support local leaders in identifying shared goals, mobilizing resources, and developing strategies to achieve these goals. Residential involvement in local initiatives can improve sense of control, empowerment, individual coping, and health behaviors. Community organizations may operate in a variety of ways to build social bonds and collective efficacy among residents. Community organizers often use a social action, conflict-based model. Asset-based community developers use an empowerment-oriented approach in response to community needs.

Enhancing the collective citizenship of a community can also promote collective efficacy. While the constructs of felon disenfranchisement across states vary, the majority temporarily restricts or permanently removes the right to vote for individuals with criminal backgrounds. When this occurs at a large scale in concentrated dimensions, the result is the disenfranchisement of entire communities and the erosion of collective citizenship. The political strength of the entire community is undermined when a significant portion of community members bear felony convictions. For example, S. David Mitchell demonstrated how voting restrictions inhibit the community’s ability to elect representatives that serve their collective interests. The collateral consequences of felon disenfranchisement are so extensive that more attention is being drawn to a critical, yet often- overlooked aspect of reentry: civic reintegration to produce conforming (vs. deviant) citizens.

Research has found that to fully understand problems and shape solutions around mass incarceration, a community approach is necessary. This approach promotes an interdisciplinary multisector strategy for supporting individuals in contact with the criminal justice system. If actualized, community supports not only reduce the number of individuals entering prisons—they can successfully restore former inmates to full and productive citizenship.

Kathryn Bocanegra

Further Readings: Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382-410.

Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Eng, E., Briscoe, J., & Cunningham, A. (1990).

Participation effect from water projects on EPI. Social Science & Medicine, 30(12), 1349-1358.
Fagan, J., West, V., & Hollan, J. (2002). Reciprocal effects of crime and incarceration in New York City neighborhoods. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1551.
Frost, N. A., & Gross, L. A. (2012). Coercive mobility and the impact of prison-cycling on communities. Crime, Law and Social Change, 57(5), 459-474.