Advertisement

Incarceration and Personal Networks: Unpacking Measures and Meanings of Tie Strength

  • Andres F. Rengifo
  • Samuel E. DeWitt
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

The advent of mass incarceration has reinvigorated calls for a deeper understanding of how the “quality of relationships” is shaped by imprisonment (Travis J, Western B, Redburn S (eds), The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences, National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2014). We address this issue by describing how imprisonment relates to four dimensions of tie strength in a sample of South Bronx residents.

Methods

We draw on a series of survey-based multilevel models to examine how tie strength relates to characteristics of respondents and their self-reported contacts (N1 = 585 ties, N2 = 97 egos) regarding (a) frequency, (b) duration, (c) multiplexity, and (d) reciprocity.

Results

Ties of formerly-incarcerated persons are of shorter duration and exhibit less overlap relative to other respondents. However, markers of general association across the sample to currently/formerly incarcerated persons correlate with alter-ego ties that are more frequent, long-lasting, and multi-dimensional.

Conclusions

There is some support for the notion that direct exposure to incarceration is linked to a weakening of ties akin to a “knifing-off” process (Maruna and Roy, J Contemp Crim Justice 23(1):104–124, 2007). Indirect exposure to incarceration may follow an inverse pattern, strengthening the ties among those “left behind”.

Keywords

Social networks Mass incarceration Multilevel models Prisoner reentry 

References

  1. Arditti J, Smock S, Parkman TS (2005) “It’s been hard to be a father”: a qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering 3(3):267–288Google Scholar
  2. Backstrom L, Kleinberg J (2014) Romantic partnerships and the dispersion of social ties: a network analysis of relationship status of Facebook. arXiv. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (CSCW)Google Scholar
  3. Bales WD, Mears DP (2008) Inmate social ties and the transition to society: does visitation reduce recidivism? J Res Crime Delinq 45(3):287–321Google Scholar
  4. Bell A, Jones K (2015) Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Polit Sci Res Methods 3(1):133–153Google Scholar
  5. Berg M, Huebner BM (2011) Reentry and the ties that bind: an examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Q 28(2):382–410Google Scholar
  6. Bui HN, Morash M (2010) The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after prison release. J Offender Rehabil 49(1):1–22Google Scholar
  7. Bunton-Smith I, McCarthy DJ (2016) The effects of prisoner attachment to family on re-entry outcomes: a longitudinal assessment. Br J Criminol 57(2):463–482Google Scholar
  8. Calcaterra SL, Beaty B, Mueller SR, Min SJ, Binswanger IA (2014) The association between social stressors and drug use/hazardous drinking among former prison inmates. J Subst Abuse Treat 47(1):41–49Google Scholar
  9. Campbell KE, Lee BA (1992) Sources of personal neighbor networks: social integration, need, or time? Soc Forces 70(4):1077–1100Google Scholar
  10. Christian J, Mellow J, Thomas S (2006) Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners. J Crim Justice 34(4):443–452Google Scholar
  11. City of New York (2015) NYC Community Health Profiles. www.nyc.gov
  12. Cobbina J, Huebner BM, Berg MT (2012) Men, women and postrelease offending: an examination of the nature of the link between relational ties and recidivism. Crime Delinq 58(3):331–361Google Scholar
  13. Cochran J (2014) Breaches in the wall: imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. J Res Crime Delinq 51(2):200–229Google Scholar
  14. Comfort ML (2009) Doing time together. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Comfort ML (2016) “A twenty-hour-a-day job”. The impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 665(1):63–79Google Scholar
  16. De Cuyper R, Dirkzwager A, Volker B, Van der Laan P, Nieuwbeerta P (2013) Personal networks of prisoners prior to incarceration: a comparison with the general Dutch population. Soc Sci Res 42(6):1612–1621Google Scholar
  17. De Jong Grieveld J, Perlman D (2006) Long-standing nonkin relationships of older adults in the Netherlands and the United States. Res Aging 28(6):730–748Google Scholar
  18. Degenne A (1999) Introducing social networks. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Desmond M (2012) Disposable ties and the urban poor. Am J Soc 117(5):1295–1335Google Scholar
  20. Drucker E (2011) A plague of prisons. The epidemiology of mass incarceration in America. New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Duwe G, Clark V (2013) Blessed be the social tie that bind. The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Crim J Policy Rev 24(3):271–296Google Scholar
  22. Elder GH (1998) The life course as developmental theory. Child Dev 69(1):1–12Google Scholar
  23. Friedkin N (1980) A test of structural features of Granovetter’s strength of weak ties theory. Soc Netw 2(4):411–422Google Scholar
  24. Giordano P, Cernkovich S, Holland D (2003) Changes in friendship relations over the life course: implications for desistance from crime. Criminology 41(2):293–328Google Scholar
  25. Giordano P, Lonardo RA, Manning WD, Longmore MA (2010) Adolescent romance and deliquency: a further exploration of Hirschi’s “cold and brittle” relationships hypothesis. Criminology 48(4):919–946Google Scholar
  26. Goffman A (2014) On the run. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Gonnerman J (2004) Life on the outside. Picador, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Soc 78(6):1360–1380Google Scholar
  29. Haines V, Hurlbert JS (1992) Network range and health. J Health Soc Behav 33(3):254–266Google Scholar
  30. Harding DJ, Wyse JB, Dobson C, Morenoff J (2014) Making ends meet after prison. J Policy Anal Manag 33(2):440–470Google Scholar
  31. Hathaway A, Hyshka E, Erickson P, Asbridge M, Brochu S, Cousineau MM, Duff C, Marsh D (2010) Whither RDS? An investigation of respondent driven sampling as a method of recruiting mainstream marijuana users. Harm Reduct J 7(1):1–11Google Scholar
  32. Heckathorn DD (1997) Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl 44(2):174–199Google Scholar
  33. Hipp JR, Boessen A (2013) Neighborhoods, social networks, and crime. In: Cullen F, Wilcox P, Sampson RJ, Dooley BD (eds) Challenging criminological theory: the legacy of Ruth Kornhauser. Transaction, Piscataway, pp 275–298Google Scholar
  34. Hirschi T (1969) Social sources of delinquency. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Horney J, Osgood DW, Marshall IH (1995) Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. Am Soc Rev 60(5):655–673Google Scholar
  36. Huebner BM, DeJong C, Cobbina J (2010) Women coming home: long-term patterns of recidivism. Justice Q 27(2):225–254Google Scholar
  37. Justice Mapping Center (2010) Justice atlas of sentencing and corrections. Prison admission series (New York state series: 2008). www.justiceatlas.org
  38. Kalish Y, Robins G (2006) Psychological predispositions and network structure: the relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Soc Netw 28(1):56–84Google Scholar
  39. Killworth P, Bernard HR (1976) Informant accuracy in social network data. Hum Org 35(3):269–286Google Scholar
  40. King KM, Latkin CA, Davey-Rothwell MA (2015) Love on lockdown: how social network characteristics predict separational concurrency among low income African-American women. J Urban Health 92(3):460–471Google Scholar
  41. Kirk DS (2009) A natural experiment on residential change and recidivism: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Am Soc Rev 74(3):484–505Google Scholar
  42. Kreager DA, Matsueda R (2014) Bayesian updating and crime. In: Weisburd D, Bruinsmaand G (eds) Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. Springer, New York, pp 115–125Google Scholar
  43. Kreager DA, Schaefer DR, Bouchard M, Haynie DL, Wakefield S, Young J, Zajac G (2015) Toward a criminology of inmate networks. Justice Q 33(6):1000–1028Google Scholar
  44. Kreager DA, Palmen H, Dirkzwager A, Nieuwbeerta P (2016) Doing your own time: peer integration, agression and mental health in Dutch male detainment facilities. Soc Sci Med 151(1):92–99Google Scholar
  45. Kreager DA, Young TN, Haynie DL, Bouchard M, Schaefer DR, Zajac G (2017) Where “old heads prevail: Inmate hierarchy in a men’s prison unit. Am Soc Rev 82(4):685–718Google Scholar
  46. LeBlanc AN (2003) Random family. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Leverentz A (2014) The ex-prisonner’s dilemma. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  48. Lin N, Dean A, Ensel W (1986) Social support, life events, and depression. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Marsden PV (1990) Network data and measurement. Annu Rev Sociol 16:435–463Google Scholar
  50. Marsden P, Campbell K (1984) Measuring tie strength. Soc Forces 63(2):482–501Google Scholar
  51. Marsden P, Campbell K (2012) Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Soc Forces 91(1):17–23Google Scholar
  52. Maruna S (2001) Making good. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Maruna S, Roy K (2007) Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “knifing off” and desistance from crime. J Contemp Crim Justice 23(1):104–124Google Scholar
  54. Matthews KM, White MC, Long RG, Soper B, Von Bergen CW (1998) Association of indicators and predictors of tie strength. Psychol Rep 83:1459–1469Google Scholar
  55. McGloin J, Piquero A (2010) On the relationship between co-offending network redundancy and offending versatility. J Res Crime Delinq 47(1):63–90Google Scholar
  56. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Soc 27(1):415–444Google Scholar
  57. Mollenhorst G (2008) Context overlap and multiplexity in personal relationships. In: Friemel TN (ed) Why context matters. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  58. Nargiso JE, Kuo CC, Zlotnick C, Johnson J (2014) Social support network characteristics of incarcerated women with co-occurring major depressive and substance use disorders. J Psychoact Drugs 46(2):93–105Google Scholar
  59. Travis J, Western B, Redburn S (eds) (2014) The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Nelson M, Deess P, Allen C (1999) First month out: post-incarceration experiences in New York City. Vera Institute of Justice, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Owens B (1998) “In the mix”. Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  62. Pager D (2003) The mark of a criminal record. Am J Soc 108:937–975Google Scholar
  63. Papachristos A (2011) The coming of age of networked criminology? In: MacDonald J (ed) Measuring crime and criminality: advances in criminological theory, v17. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 101–140Google Scholar
  64. Paternoster R, Bushway S (2009) Desistance and the feared self. J Crim Law Criminol 99(4):1103–1156Google Scholar
  65. Pretoczi A, Nepusz T, Baszo F (2007) Measuring tie-strength in virtual social networks. Connections 27(2):39–52Google Scholar
  66. Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Reisig MD, Holtfreter K, Morash M (2002) Social capital among women offenders: examining the distribution of social networks and resources. J Contemp Crim Justice 18(2):167–187Google Scholar
  68. Rengifo A (2007) Neighborhood effects and informal social control. Examining the role of social networks in the South Bronx. Unpublished PhD dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Rodriguez N (2016) Bridging the gap between research and practice. The role of science in addressing the effects of incarceration on family life. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 665(1):231–240Google Scholar
  70. Rose DR, Clear T (1998) Incarceration, social capital, and crime: implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology 36(3):441–480Google Scholar
  71. Salvo J, Lobo AP (2003) The effect of neighborhood characteristics on non-response in the Bronx test site of the American Community Survey. Proc Surv Res Met Sect Am Stat Assoc 2003:3624–3635Google Scholar
  72. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  73. Schroeder RD, Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA (2007) Drug use and desistance processes. Criminology 45(1):191–222Google Scholar
  74. Small ML (2017) Someone to talk to. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Snijders T, Spreen M, Zwaagstra R (1995) The use of multilevel modeling for analysis of personal networks: networks of cocaine users in an urban area. J Quant Anthropol 5(1):85–105Google Scholar
  76. Sykes GM (1958) The society of captives. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  77. Uggen C, Manza J, Behrens A (2004) ‘Less than the average citizen’: stigma, role transition and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In: Maruna S, Immarigeon R (eds) After crime and punishment. Willan, London, pp 258–290Google Scholar
  78. Van Duijin M, Jooske AJ, van Busschbach T, Snijders TAB (1999) Multilevel analysis of personal networks as dependent variables. Soc Netw 21(2):187–210Google Scholar
  79. Verbrugge LM (1979) Multiplexity in adult friendships. Soc Forces 57(4):1286–1309Google Scholar
  80. Visher C, Travis J (2003) Transitions from prison to community: understanding individual pathways. Annu Rev Soc 29(1):89–113Google Scholar
  81. Wakefield S, Wildeman C (2013) Children of the Prison boom. Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Wellman B, Wortley S (1990) Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. Am J Soc 96(3):558–588Google Scholar
  83. Wellman B, Wong RY, Tindall D, Nazer N (1997) A decade of network change: turnover, persistence and stability in personal communities. Soc Netw 19(1):27–50Google Scholar
  84. Western B, Kling J, Weiman DF (2001) The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime Delinq 47(3):410–427Google Scholar
  85. Wolff N, Draine J (2004) Dynamics of social capital of prisoners and community reentry: ties that bind? J Correct Health Care 10(3):457–490Google Scholar
  86. Young J (2011) How do they ‘end up together’? A social network analysis of self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships. J Quant Crim 27(3):251–273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers University- NewarkNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyUniversity of North Carolina - CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations