Household Dynamics in the Year after Prison

Catherine Sirois *

Stanford University

November 2015

Key words: poverty; incarceration; households; prisoner reentry

*Stanford Department of Sociology, 450 Serra Mall, Building 120, Stanford,CA 94305. E-mail: csirois@stanford.edu. Data for this paper are from theBoston Reentry Study, led by Bruce Western, Anthony Braga and Rhiana Kohl. TheBoston Reentry Study was made possible by the hundreds of men and womenwho shared their time and life experience to improve our understanding of incar-ceration in America. This research was supported by grant 5R21HD073761-02from NIH/NICHD and SES-1259013 from the National Science Foundation. TheMassachusetts Department of Correction granted access to correctional facilities,administrative data, and extensive assistance with data collection. I am gratefulto Bruce Western, Anthony Braga, Matthew Desmond, Christopher Muller, AdamTravis and the members of the Justice and Inequality reading group at HarvardUniversity for helpful comments on prior drafts. I presented an earlier version ofthis paper at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

Abstract

The household is typically conceived as a fixed residence where marriedadults pool incomes and raise their children. In poor communities, how-ever, households are often residentially unstable, fluid in composition, andeconomically insecure. Men and women who leave prison face extreme dis-advantage and their households are likely to shape social integration afterincarceration. Using data from the Boston Reentry Study, this paper de-scribes the households of men and women newly released from prison andestimates the effects of household support on re-arrest, social networks,and employment. Regression analysis with an index measuring householdsupport shows that living in a stable well-resourced household just afterprison release is associated with reduced risks of arrest and unemploymentsix to 12 months later. More than just a social unit for sampling and enu-meration, the analysis suggests the household is an explanatory conceptthat can account for the community attachment of poor, minority popula-tions often detached from formal sources of economic and social support.

The contemporary household is typically conceived as a social unit made

up of a fixed private residence in which adults raise children and pool re-

sources to support their family (Laslett 1972). However, many socially and

economically marginal adults are detached from conventional households

and the social roles that comprise them. These adults experience high lev-

els of residential mobility (Shaw and McKay 1942; Lee 1978; South and

Crowder 1997; Sampson and Sharkey 2008), household member fluidity

(Smith 1970; Stack 1974; Tach et al. 2014), and economic insecurity (Edin

and Lein 1997; Desmond 2012a). Men and women in these contexts typ-

ically are viewed as having few connections to collective living situations

that may offer material support and stability (Martin 1999; de la Puente

2004; Martin 2007). Data collection that samples from conventionally-

defined households also overlooks these highly marginal segments of the

population (Valentine and Valentine 1971; Rossi 1989; Groves and Couper

1998; de la Puente 2004; Pettit 2012). The standard household concept

thus restricts our view of the living arrangements of poor men and women

and the influence of those arrangements on well-being.

Even among the poor, conventional households are especially rare for

those who cycle through correctional institutions. For over one million

poor men and women in the United States, the prison, not the traditional

household, is the central site of social life. While leaving prison presents an

opportunity for household membership, a supportive household is far from

guaranteed. Research on residence after prison release suggests that the

formerly incarcerated experience high levels of housing insecurity and res-

idential mobility (Metraux and Culhane 2004; La Vigne and Parthasarathy

2005; Geller and Curtis 2011; Harding, Morenoff, and Herbert 2013; Her-

bert, Morenoff, and Harding 2015). Men and women just released from

1

prison are likely to occupy the complex and fluid households characteristic

of other deeply disadvantaged groups (Stack 1974; Edin and Lein 1997;

Blank 1998; Desmond 2012a; Mykyta and Macartney 2012). With incar-

ceration at historically high levels, the formerly incarcerated are an impor-

tant segment of the population in poverty. More than this, however, be-

cause their living situations show great variety in the period immediately

after incarceration, men and women who leave prison are important for

studying household life in contexts of severe deprivation.

This paper seeks to answer two questions: What do households look

like for a group of people on the margins of social and economic life? And

what are the effects of household support on individual outcomes after

prison release? In addressing these questions, the paper makes three key

contributions to our understanding of households among the formerly in-

carcerated and marginal populations more broadly.

First, the analysis draws on unique qualitative and quantitative data

to examine household dynamics among a complete sample of men and

women released from prison. The Boston Reentry Study (BRS) documents

the experiences of 122 people in the year after they leave prison through

a series of five in-person interviews, from just before prison release to 12

months out, frequent phone check-ins, interviews with family members or

close friends, and linked administrative records. For a population charac-

terized by a high rate of residential mobility, this multi-method approach

improves on studies that use administrative records to track residence or

research that retains only those easiest to follow.

Second, the analysis expands how we study complex and fluid house-

hold membership by taking the perspective of adults recently released from

prison. Most prior research on households in poor communities focuses on

2

the implications of household structure for children (McLanahan 2004).

Research on the households of the formerly incarcerated is often restricted

to those with children (Geller and Curtis 2011) or records people’s res-

idence type at points in time, with little detail on household dynamics

(Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Using data from the BRS, we can map

the networks of household relationships in which former prisoners are em-

bedded and describe their economic status over the course of a year, even

if they are not heads of households or parents living with their children.

Lastly, this paper draws together several lines of research – on housing,

families, and social networks – to elevate the household as a social con-

text influencing the life chances of the extremely disadvantaged. Research

on households under conditions of poverty typically focuses on a single

component of one’s living situation, such as residential stability or family

complexity. I propose an alternative household concept in which support

offered by a living situation depends on (1) stability of physical residence,

(2) continuity of household composition, and (3) the economic security

of household members. Results from a regression analysis indicate that

residence in a supportive household soon after release reduces individu-

als’ likelihood of criminal charges and increases their odds of employment

months later. In this way, a supportive household promotes community

attachment among men and women who have been separated from com-

munity life by incarceration.

Analysis of community return after incarceration has typically focused

on criminal recidivism, and a large body of research highlights the impor-

tance of individual behavioral change for reducing crime (Pearson et al.

2002; MacKenzie 2006; Heller et al. 2015; cf. Visher and Travis 2003). In

contrast to explanations that emphasize individual characteristics, through

3

its focus on the household, this paper shows how one’s immediate social

context can help account for a successful transition into the community,

measured beyond recidivism.

By treating the household as a source of community attachment, the

analysis expands our understanding of how a living situation helps to pro-

mote citizenship, sociability, and employment among the very poor. A mul-

tifaceted view of a supportive household as a stable residence, a site of

ongoing social relationships, and a source of economic security helps ex-

plain how community bonds develop after incarceration in a way that is

grounded in the lived experience of social marginality.

HOUSEHOLDS IN POOR COMMUNITIES

At its most basic level the household is a physical residence. Stable housing

involves “customary and regular access to a conventional dwelling” (Rossi

1989:10). The census defines a household unit as “a house, an apartment,

a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occu-

pied. . . as separate living quarters” (Torrieri 2014:67). A household may

provide shelter for someone who might otherwise be unhoused and protec-

tion from the visibility of public life (Duneier 1999:305-306). Conventional

surveys distinguish household units from group quarters, such as homeless

shelters, residential treatment programs, and correctional facilities. While

group quarters provide physical shelter, residence is often temporary and

marked by high turnover. A continuous residence makes daily life more

predictable and secure. Beyond fulfilling a critical material need, residen-

tial continuity provides a foundation for individual stability.

More than a physical residence, a household also functions as a site

of social relationships. The contemporary household is usually associated

4

with the nuclear family (parents and their biological or adopted children),

though historically, the household has consisted of a wide variety of so-

cial relationships (Fischer 1958; Hammel and Laslett 1974; Kertzer 1991).

Membership in a household is determined not just by “spatial proximity or

closeness of kinship” but also by the “intensity of functional association”

(Hammel and Laslett 1974:78). From this perspective the household is

partly woven together by intimate relationships and partly brings people

together to enable them to do collectively what they cannot do by them-

selves. Access to consistent sources of social support at the household level

can lend stability and order to daily life.

Besides providing housing and intimate bonds, households also function

to pool resources and provide material support. The organization of indi-

viduals for the production and consumption of goods predates the notion

of the household as solely a site of family life (Kertzer 1991; Yanagisako

1979). Historians and anthropologists observe that the household is an an-

cient form of economic organization that existed prior to rudimentary mar-

kets (Finley 1973; Polanyi 1944).1 The contemporary American household

still retains something of its original meaning as a small social organization

operating for the fulfillment of human needs. When employment is steady

and material resources are readily available, prime-age adults can live to-

gether (typically with their children) and sustain the household on their

wages (Oppenheimer 1997). The household then is a risk pooling unit that

enables residents to guard against economic shocks (Western et al. 2012).

Households in poor communities often differ from the fixed social units

defined by the census and sampled in household surveys. Conceiving of the

1Finley (1973:17) writes: “The word ‘economics’, Greek in origin, is compounded fromoikos, a household, and the semantically complex root, nem-, here in its sense of ‘regulate,administer, organize.’"

5

household as comprising a physical residence, social relationships, and eco-

nomic resources suggests that there are three key dimensions along which

the support of a household might vary. In situations of serious economic

need, households are marked by residential mobility, household member

fluidity, and economic insecurity.

Poor people, particularly in urban areas, are less likely to reside in safe

and stable housing. Residential mobility is common as people struggle to

pay rent, seek to leave unsafe neighborhoods, or are forced out of their

homes (Shaw and McKay 1942; Lee 1978; South and Crowder 1997; Samp-

son and Sharkey 2008). Analysis of data from a housing voucher experi-

ment indicates the willingness of low-income tenants to move to poorer

neighborhoods to live in a higher-quality private residence (Rosenblatt and

Deluca 2012). Still, men and women with few resources face limited hous-

ing options and are more likely to live in small or ramshackle units or risk

eviction (Bartlett 1997; Desmond 2012b). When residence is unstable,

daily life is less predictable and secure.

High rates of residential mobility likely contribute to the fluidity of res-

idents in and out of households. Raymond Smith (1970:68) described this

fluidity in low-income black households, explaining that “there is a con-

stant coming and going of people, and it is frequently difficult to determine

just which household a given individual belongs to at any particular mo-

ment.” Research on economically dislocated men reveals the instability of

their households when they do not have the material resources to support a

family (Liebow 1967; Duneier 1999; Gowan 2010; Tach et al. 2014). As a

result, a stable group of adults is rarely consistently present in households

among the most socially marginal populations. The free-flow of residents

undermines the household as a reliable source of social support.

6

In contexts of poverty, where unemployment is high and adults move

in and out of households, steady earners are in short supply and house-

holds are marked by economic insecurity. Nearly half of all mothers in

low-income families are unmarried or live separately from their husbands

(McLanahan 2004). Thus, even when adults are employed, the high pro-

portion of single parent households means that the burden of household

provision might rest on one source of income. This limits the ability of

household members to pool financial risk, and as a result, the household

is more vulnerable to shocks such as job loss or economic recession (Ba-

nia and Leete 2009; Lusardi, Schneider, and Tufano 2011; Western et al.

2012). Many residents of poor communities pool resources with extended

kin, friends, and other non-relatives to survive periods of unemployment

and insecure housing (Stack 1974; Edin and Lein 1997; Desmond 2012a).

However, the availability of resources is not reliable in contexts of depri-

vation, and households where families are “doubled up” make for fragile

economic units (Edin and Lein 1997; Desmond 2012a).

This review of households under conditions of poverty suggests a sim-

ple theory of household support. Where people live in a stable residence,

where home consists of a continuous group of co-residents, and where

those co-residents are gainfully employed, the living situation provides a

social context for order and well-being in daily life. On the other hand,

where housing is not guaranteed, where people move in and out of a resi-

dence, and where co-residents are not working, one’s living situation con-

tributes to social and economic insecurity.

What do we know about the household support of men and women just

released from prison? Research on the living arrangements of the formerly-

incarcerated has focused mainly on housing. Between 5 and 20 percent of

7

men and women who leave prison are unhoused or reside in shelters in

the period after release (Metraux, Roman, and Cho 2007; Harding et al.

2013). Beyond outright homelessness, the formerly-incarcerated experi-

ence high levels of residential mobility. A recent study using administrative

records found that Michigan parolees moved an average of 2.6 times over

the course of a year after incarceration, and nearly 60 percent of all moves

were produced by the criminal justice system (Harding et al. 2013; Her-

bert et al. 2015). A small subset of men and women account for most of

the residential mobility in the entire cohort of prison releasees (La Vigne

and Parthasarathy 2005; Visher and Courtney 2007), and mobility is most

common during the period soon after release (Warner 2015; Herbert et al.

2015). Thus while the formerly incarcerated experience housing insecurity,

it is unevenly distributed, closely associated with reincarceration, and most

serious immediately after prison release.

Low earnings and restrictions on public housing reduce opportunities

for independent housing after prison (Geller and Curtis 2011; Rubinstein

and Mukamal 2002; Malone 2009). Due to high levels of residential mo-

bility and the scarcity of independent housing, household surveys likely

undercount men and women moving from prison to the community. Stud-

ies of prison release cohorts suggest the recently-incarcerated are forced to

double up with family and friends, typically parents and partners (Geller

and Curtis 2011; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Geller 2013; Harding

et al. 2013; Harding et al. 2014; Herbert et al. 2015). Several studies

describe the complex households of formerly-incarcerated adults with chil-

dren (Braman 2004; Wildeman and Western 2010; Edin and Nelson 2013;

Geller 2013; Wakefield and Wildeman 2014), but information on those

without children is scarce. As a result, we know little about the household

8

composition of men and women after prison and the continuity of house-

hold membership over time.

Few studies of the formerly incarcerated examine the household as an

economic unit. Men with greater earnings after prison are less likely to

experience housing insecurity than those with lower earnings (Geller and

Curtis 2011; Herbert et al. 2015), but steady employment is rare (West-

ern 2006). Though research suggests that the formerly-incarcerated rely

heavily on their co-residents and family members to help pay for living

expenses (Geller and Curtis 2011; Harding et al. 2014), the extent of ma-

terial support from household members after prison is largely unknown.

Because the majority of those released from prison reside in poor neigh-

borhoods (Sampson and Loeffler 2010; Massoglia, Firebaugh, and Warner

2012; Harding et al. 2013), assistance from steady earners is likely limited

but critical to establishing economic security in the year after prison.

In sum, although the household life of the formerly incarcerated has

not been a key focus for research, related work suggests men and women

released from prison encounter precarious living situations. Housing is

likely insecure and often in group quarters. Households themselves may

be characterized by high turnover. Household members are also likely to

be socially and economically insecure, providing little material support.

Housing insecurity may also be greatest immediately after incarceration.

EFFECTS OF HOUSEHOLDS AFTER PRISON

We can think of the household as a multifaceted social context that helps

to organize daily life. The three components of residential stability, compo-

sitional continuity, and economic security work together to form a support-

ive household. Often in research on poor populations, the neighborhood

9

is taken as the main social context that affects a variety of life chances at

the individual level. (For reviews, see Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-

Rowley 2002; Small and Feldman 2012; Sharkey and Faber 2014.) Similar

to the neighborhood, through its composition and continuity, the house-

hold environment affects an individual’s capacity to fill mainstream social

roles as employed members of free society. Perhaps even more proximate,

the household thus comes to exercise a critical influence on an individual’s

community attachment after incarceration. Supportive households might

promote community attachment in three areas.

First, access to a supportive household can offer privacy and protection

from the chaos of daily life. For those outside of supportive households,

the stress of transition, perhaps involving relapse to addiction or disorderly

behavior, plays out in the public eye. Those without the privacy of a stable

household are often most visible to agents of the criminal justice system

(Duneier 1999; Warner and Coomer 2003; Beckett and Herbert 2010). A

supportive household might also include adults who can assist those whose

legal status is compromised. For example, household members may give

rides to those who would otherwise drive without a license or those who

wish to avoid potential conflict on public transportation. Thus, residence

in a supportive household will likely reduce the chances that someone in-

teracts with the criminal justice system in the year after release.

Second, supportive households offer opportunities for social contact.

For those who have spent much of their lives in punitive institutions, the

transition to the community is marked by social isolation (Western et al.

2015a). Without access to a supportive household soon after release, the

first few months in the community might be spent in group quarters among

strangers or in an otherwise fluid residential context (Harding et al. 2013;

10

Harding et al. 2014). Research suggests that individuals who reside in

neighborhoods with low resident turnover have expanded social networks

and greater attachment to the community (Sampson 1988; Schieman 2005;

Keene, Bader, and Ailshire 2013). We might expect that the social stabil-

ity offered by a supportive household similarly increases social contact and

reduces the isolation of those released from prison. Those in supportive

households may have a larger social network months later, due to consis-

tent access to people at their residence and greater support to engage with

others in the community.

Third, a supportive household provides a foundation for subsistence

which can expand economic opportunity. Knowing that one has a place

to sleep each night and consistent material support lends predictability to

daily life in the first months after prison release (Harding et al. 2014). For

those without secure housing, time spent trying to find somewhere to stay

could be spent looking for work. A network of steadily employed friends

and family members can increase one’s own employment chances (Bayer,

Ross, and Topa 2004). Such co-residents may themselves be a source of

job opportunities, particularly in relationships characterized by high levels

of trust (Smith 2007). They may also help support a job search, materially

assisting with transport or clothing, for example. A supportive household,

with steady access to a continuous set of adult earners, is thus likely to

improve one’s chances of becoming employed in the year after release.

In short, living in a supportive household should be associated with

less criminal justice system involvement, stronger social networks, and im-

proved employment opportunity.

11

DATA AND METHODS

The Boston Reentry Study (BRS) followed 122 men and women for a year

after they were released from Massachusetts state prison to the Boston area.

The study was designed to maintain a high rate of retention with a group of

people that might be loosely attached to households, lacking steady formal

employment, and involved in crime. The BRS sample includes 107 men

and 15 women, 36 years old on average and with ages ranging from 19 to

59. About half of the sample is black, a third is white, and the remainder

is Latino. Two-thirds report a history of mental illness or drug addiction.

As with most prison release cohorts, BRS respondents have experienced

severe disadvantage and are similar to other populations that are difficult

to follow with conventional data collection. The BRS managed to retain

over 90 percent of respondents through 12 months of follow-up, signifi-

cantly higher than most prior research on this population (Western, Braga,

Hureau, and Sirois 2015b).

The study provides detailed information on living arrangements after

prison, allowing that residence might change many times over the course

of a year. Interviews documented people’s residence and household com-

position at one week, two months, six months, and twelve months after

their release from state prison. A household roster for each respondent

recorded the age, sex, relationship, and employment status of each person

in the respondent’s household.2 The roster tracked whether respondents

were staying with the same people at each interview and provided detailed

data on household fluidity. Phone check-ins with respondents in between

2For respondents staying between two households, their primary household wasrecorded in the household roster. Respondents staying in group quarters or on the streetswere asked questions about their residence but did not complete the household roster.

12

interviews allowed for a more complete residential history over the year af-

ter prison release. Each phone call documented where the respondent was

staying and the number of places stayed in the previous week. Phone calls

were not designed to collect data on other household members, though re-

spondents would often volunteer who they were staying with at the time.

These data allow construction of a variable measuring residence type at

each calendar month after release from prison. Residence type includes pri-

vate residences for people staying on their own or with family and friends,

group quarters such as homeless shelters, rooming houses, and correctional

facilities, or no set place if respondents were staying between several places

or on the streets. This approach captures the heterogeneity of living ar-

rangements of released prisoners compared to the general population (see

Appendix Table A.1). The monthly residence variable also tracks whether

respondents were staying in the same place from month to month.

The BRS data improve on other information on the patterns of residence

of released prisoners. Prior studies have relied on administrative records

(Metraux and Culhane 2004; Metraux et al. 2007; Malone 2009; Hard-

ing et al. 2013), interviews where many respondents are lost to follow-up

(Visher et al. 2004; La Vigne et al. 2004; La Vigne and Parthasarathy 2005;

Visher and Courtney 2007; Geller and Curtis 2011), or small ethnographic

samples (Harding et al. 2014; Leverentz 2014). The following analysis

advances prior research by using multiple data sources to study residen-

tial transitions over time, the variety of people that men and women stay

with after incarceration, and the economic status of household members.

Because the formerly-incarcerated are likely to live outside of traditional

households, in group quarters or doubling up with family, we need a flex-

ible measurement strategy that encompasses the full variety of residential

13

types and the different social relations that they house.

MEASURING HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT

The following analysis measures household support in terms of a stable

physical residence, the continuity of co-residents, and the economic secu-

rity of other household members. These measures contribute to an index

of household support to be used in an analysis of household effects on in-

dividuals’ community attachment in the year after prison.

A first step toward the security that a household might provide is a sta-

ble physical residence. The BRS data suggest a great degree of residential

mobility in the 12 months after incarceration. Figure 1 displays two indica-

tors of residential stability among respondents – the number of residential

transitions over twelve months, and the probability of a residential transi-

tion at each month post-release. A respondent is considered to have moved

if his/her residence was different at one month than the previous month.

Those who were staying on the streets or who had no set place were coded

as having a different residence at each month.

The first panel in Figure 1 shows that only about one fifth of the sam-

ple remained in the same residence through 12 months after release. The

median number of residential transitions was two over the course of 12

months, and the most mobile respondent was staying in a different place at

each month (11 residential transitions). A significant portion of the sample

was highly mobile, with about 30 percent reporting three or more residen-

tial transitions.

The second panel of Figure 1 displays the probability of a residential

transition for two groups, those with less than two moves (the median

number) and those with equal to or more than two moves over 12 months

14

Figure 1. Number and probability of residential transitions over 12 months afterprison release (N = 113).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Number of Residential Transitions

Pro

port

ion

of R

espo

nden

ts

05

1015

2025

2 4 6 8 10 12

010

2030

4050

Months after Prison Release

Pro

babi

lity

of a

Res

iden

tial T

rans

ition

● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

Total sample

Less than 2 moves

2 or more moves

15

post-release. This division reveals the concentration of residential mobility

in just half of the sample. For the high-mobility group, the probability of

a residential transition was over 35 percent during the first two months,

increased to 47 percent at three months and then declined over the next

few months. The sharp increase at three months results from respondents

who left a homeless shelter or residential treatment program, moved out

of private homes where they were staying temporarily, or began to split

their time between multiple residences. Residential instability increased at

11 and 12 months out, largely because of reincarceration. Twelve months

after prison release, 17 percent of the sample were residing in prisons or

jail. Incarceration was often temporary and precluded respondents from

building the supportive relationships that a private household might offer.

Those in the highly mobile group were rarely able to depend on a sta-

ble physical residence. Donny, a 47 year-old white male, spent most of his

life in Boston’s North End neighborhood and returned there upon his re-

lease from prison. He had lost the apartment he shared with his ex-wife

when he was arrested three years earlier and moved in with an older fe-

male cousin who worked as a waitress at a local restaurant. She did not

charge Donny rent to sleep on the couch in her one-bedroom apartment.

While his cousin welcomed him for a short stay, she was concerned that

she would be evicted since Donny’s presence violated the conditions of her

lease. Just two weeks after his release, Donny frantically reported that he

needed to find his own place. He struggled with depression, posttraumatic

stress disorder, agoraphobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and his

mental health problems appeared to be exacerbated by his anxiety about

his housing search. At two months out of prison, Donny had begun to stay

with other friends for a few nights a week in order to relieve the burden on

16

his cousin. For the remainder of the year, he cycled between local home-

less shelters, the streets, a friend’s couch, and hospitals, where he would

go after a suicide attempt. At the 12-month interview, Donny again pro-

vided his cousin’s address, though was only staying there temporarily and

considered himself homeless. A private family residence in this case was

available but temporary, and was not a stable source of support in the year

after prison release.

In contrast to highly mobile respondents like Donny, about half of the

sample were residentially stable. Jordan, a 25 year-old black male, im-

mediately moved in with his mother after three years in state prison. His

mother worked as a nurse and did not expect Jordan to pay rent, even

though he held a food service job for much of the year. Though he planned

to move out as soon as he completed parole eight months out of prison, he

was still living with his mother at the 12-month interview. His mother re-

ported that she wanted to support him and would not force him out of her

apartment. In addition to maintaining his restaurant job, Jordan attended

classes on the weekend to become a personal fitness trainer. He hoped to

become more independent so that he could eventually get his own place

with his girlfriend. Jordan was one of 23 people out of 122 in the sample

who remained in the same residence for the first 12 months after prison

release.

Beyond residential stability, the support of a living situation can be mea-

sured by the continuity and economic security of co-residents. Consistent

company with adult earners in a household increases the security of one’s

immediate social context.

The first panel of Table 1 displays the continuity of co-residents in the

year after prison release. At each post-release interview, over half of the

17

sample was staying in a residence with all different people than at the pre-

vious interview. The fluidity of co-residents reflects the high rate of residen-

tial mobility reported in Figure 1. Residential fluidity is also characteristic

of residence in group quarters. Though a portion of respondents remained

continuously in the same treatment program, sober house, or homeless

shelter from interview to interview, turnover was generally high. Several

programs imposed time limits, typically four to six months, which meant

that the resident pool was constantly in flux. Many sober houses that were

privately operated did not limit length of stay but required frequent drug

testing and weekly rental payments of $125 to $175. Strict regulations

contributed to turnover among residents. Emergency homeless shelters did

not require rent but consisted of 300 to 400 residents who changed each

night. As a result, respondents staying outside of a private household at

a given interview rarely experienced the continuous composition of a resi-

dence and thus are coded as living with all different people in Table 1.

While those staying in group quarters were most exposed to resident

turnover, a private household did not guarantee the continuity of co-residents.

Nearly 10 percent of the sample maintained the same living arrangement

from interview to interview but split their time between two places or

saw residents move in and out of their household. Lavar, a black man

who turned 50 soon after release from prison, stayed between his older

brother’s and his girlfriend’s apartments for most of the year after incarcer-

ation. Lavar had spent much of the past 10 years in prison or jail, and his

family was accustomed to housing him during his short stints in the com-

munity. His brother, a single man employed part-time at a local church,

and his girlfriend, with four young children of her own in the household,

shared the responsibility. Lavar had trouble reporting his primary house-

18

Table 1. Percentage of respondents with continuous co-residents and with earnersover 12 months after prison release.

One week Two months Six months Twelve monthsHousehold member continuity

All different people − 50.0 54.4 66.1Some but not all same people − 8.5 9.6 8.9All same people − 41.5 36.0 25.0

Household economic securityNo earners 53.7 51.7 50.9 61.6One earner 33.9 33.1 35.1 25.9Two or more earners 12.4 15.3 14.0 12.5

Total (N) 121 118 114 112

Note: Because the one-week interview is the first interview in the community,there is no comparison to previous household members. Respondents who arestaying between two households are coded as living with some of the same people,if one household is consistent from interview to interview. An earner is a prime-ageadult (18 to 65 years old) who is currently working and does not include receiptof public assistance. Respondents who are currently working are not included inthe count of household earners.

19

hold, as he would stay for a few nights with his brother, then a few nights

with his girlfriend, repeating this pattern from week to week. While this ar-

rangement provided Lavar with consistent places to stay soon after release,

his co-residents changed every three or four days. Lavar’s brother and girl-

friend both had an extra adult moving in and out of their households for

11 months, when Lavar was arrested and returned to jail for six months.

In contrast to those who experienced fluid household composition, be-

tween 25 and 40 percent of respondents stayed with the exact same people

from interview to interview. Fifteen of the 19 respondents who lived with

the same people at each post-release interview were staying in a family

household, and 11 people in this group stayed with one or both parents.

Maria, a 32-year-old white woman, moved in with her mother and father

after just over a year in state prison. Maria’s year after prison was marked

by turmoil, including the end of a romantic relationship, an ongoing strug-

gle with heroin use, and periods of unemployment. During this transition,

Maria was able to return home each day to her parents who were reliable

sources of emotional support. No one else moved in and out of the house-

hold, and Maria’s parents focused much of their attention on caring for

their adult daughter. By the 12-month interview, Maria had been employed

in a carpentry program for two months and hoped to eventually join the

union. In Maria’s case, the continuous composition of her household lent

order to an otherwise chaotic period.

Three respondents also stayed continuously with a sibling. Ricky, a 36-

year-old Puerto Rican man, had been incarcerated since his early twen-

ties. Immediately at release, his older sister Tanya welcomed him into her

apartment where she stayed with her two children. Ricky remained in the

household for the entire year, and his co-residents did not change until his

20

20-year-old nephew moved out late in the year. In the first few months

after Ricky’s prison release, Tanya drove him to work, about an hour each

way. More than rides, she helped him to navigate family relationships after

nearly 15 years in state prison. He was needy, she reported, but how can

you say no to a person that lost half his life?

Household support depends not just on the continuity of co-residents

but also on their ability to provide material support. Research on the eco-

nomic status of the formerly incarcerated typically focuses on the employ-

ment rates of those released from prison. For a population with such lim-

ited opportunity for steady work however, the employment status of those

they are living with is also important for economic security. Over half of

the sample did not live with any earners at each interview in the year af-

ter prison release, which means they were not living with anyone who was

working or they were staying in group quarters or on the street (Table 1).

Respondents in group quarters typically received the least material support

from co-residents. These settings were sometimes unsafe, and respondents

spoke just as often of having their belongings stolen as being able to borrow

money from a housemate. As a result, those in group quarters at a given

interview were coded as not having access to adult earners at their place of

residence.

The second panel of Table 1 shows that about one-third of the sample

stayed in a single-earner household through six months out of prison. This

proportion declined by the 12-month interview, due to reincarceration or

moving into one’s own place. Fifty percent of respondents were employed

themselves at one year out of prison, though work was unstable and the

wages of men and women recently released from prison are rarely suffi-

cient to support a household. With two or more earners in the household,

21

residents can insulate themselves from external shocks of job loss or a re-

duction in public assistance.

The economic status of a household can be fragile in poor communi-

ties with high rates of unemployment and residential fluidity. After three

years in state prison, Sheila, a black woman in her early forties, moved in

with her mother Rhonda who was divorced from Sheila’s father. Sheila’s

adult daughter had been staying with Rhonda during Sheila’s incarceration

but moved in with an aunt so Sheila could stay in Rhonda’s small apart-

ment in an African American section of Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood.

Rhonda provided a consistent residence and assisted Sheila by attending to

her health needs and lending her a monthly bus pass. About a month after

Sheila’s release, Rhonda was laid off from her temporary job as an office

administrator. She would remain unemployed for the next eight months.

Although she received unemployment insurance for a few months, she re-

ported that she had no other source of income. She drew down on her

savings to pay the $1500 monthly rent for the apartment. Sheila herself

had no income besides food stamps which ranged from $95 to $193 per

month. She reported that she was “financially frustrated.” As both Sheila

and her mother were at home and without work, the household became a

site of tension. Nearly a year after leaving prison, Sheila was arrested for

selling drugs, and her 12-month interview was conducted in prison. While

Sheila had access to a stable residence after release, the household only

contained an adult earner during her first month out. Rhonda’s job loss

highlights the insecurity of low-wage work and the stress that might result

in a household when no other earners are present.

Living in a household with multiple sources of income can provide

economic security upon release from prison. Phil, a 43 year-old black

22

male, spent nearly his entire adult life in prison. Immediately after re-

lease, he moved into his brother’s home in Dorchester, where he stayed

with his brother, his brother’s wife, his nephew, and his nephew’s wife.

Phil’s brother ran a construction company and provided him with a job for

$29.50 an hour, in addition to allowing him to stay in the house without

paying rent or utility bills. Phil’s brother’s wife and nephew also worked

for the construction business. At six months out of prison, he continued

to work full-time for his brother’s company, and everyone in his house-

hold was employed. Phil’s access to work and other earners helped him to

build an economic foundation after prison release. At eight months out of

prison, he moved in with his girlfriend and her two children and was able

to contribute financially to the household. This was the first time Phil had

been out of prison for a full year since he was 19 years old, largely due, he

reported, to the consistent support provided by his family household.

Qualitative evidence on household dynamics suggests a quantitative op-

erationalization of household support consisting of three components: res-

idential stability, compositional continuity, and economic security. To mea-

sure the contributions of residence, relationships, and resources to a living

situation, I constructed an index of household support that considers these

three components together.

To explain community attachment six and 12 months after release, the

index measures household support through the first four months. Mea-

surement in the first months captures the period when respondents are

most mobile. For those respondents who are reincarcerated in the first

year, most return to custody five or six months after their initial release.

Measuring the household through four months ensures that the majority

of respondents are still out in the community. Most respondents have also

23

completed two post-release interviews by the four month mark (at one

week and two months out of prison). This increases the data available on

the support of their early living arrangements, as opposed to just measuring

the household one week after release.

Table 2 describes the three items used to construct the index of house-

hold support through four months out of prison. Each item has three pos-

sible values, with higher scores indicating a higher level of household sup-

port. Stability is measured by the number of residential transitions during

the first four months out of prison. Continuous composition is measured

by the continuity of respondents’ household members from the one week

to the two month interview. The economic security of the household is

measured by co-resident adult earners at the one week and two month in-

terviews. Although the indicators of household support are chosen based

on theory, they also load heavily on a single dimension in a factor analysis

with baseline demographics and other measures of disadvantage, including

mental illness and drug addiction.

All of the three items are positively correlated. Household member

continuity is strongly correlated with both residential stability (0.47) and

household economic security (0.56). Predictably, there is a weaker corre-

lation (0.21) between residential stability and economic security because

residents could remain in the same group quarters or private residence

without other earners. Cronbach’s alpha, summarizing the strength of cor-

relations among the scale items, is 0.68. The three items are standardized

and summed to form the index. Individual index items are related to the

outcomes of interest, although the index generally yields a better fit and in-

dex coefficients have relatively smaller standard errors than the individual

items in the regression analysis that follows.

24

Table 2. Items used to construct an index of household support through fourmonths out of prison.

Item Description MeanResidential stability, 4 months 0 = 2 or more moves, 1 = 1 move, 2 = no moves. 1.23

Compositional continuity, 2 months 0 = live with all different people (includes those not in a house-hold at either 1 week or 2 months), 1 = some but not all of thesame household members, 2 = live with all of the same people atthe 1 week and 2 month interviews.

.94

Economic security, 2 months 0 = living with no other earners (including those not in house-holds), 1 = living with 1 earner, 2 = living with 2 or more earners.Respondents are not counted as earners. Item takes the averageof living with earners at the 1 week and 2 month interviews (scaleof 0 to 2 with 0.5 increments).

.61

Household support index Sum of residential stability through 4 months, compositional con-tinuity at the 2 month interview, and the average of economicsecurity at the 1 week and 2 month interviews. Range of 0 to 6.

2.78

Note: The household support index used in regression analysis is based on a sumof the standardized items.

The household support index codes group quarters as having high turnover

and low economic security though some transitional housing may have rel-

atively stable membership and pool incomes. Thus I conducted a sensitivity

analysis that explored alternative codings of household support based on

measures of residential stability, compositional continuity, and economic

security. This analysis, for example, gave greater weight to respondents

who remained in the same group quarters from one week to two months

or limited the sample to those who were in private households at either in-

terview. The following results are robust to these alternative measurement

strategies.

HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT AND COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT

With pooled data from the six and twelve-month interviews, we can explore

the effects of household support by regressing measures of community at-

25

tachment on the household support index. The logistic regression analysis

that follows uses three dependent variables: whether one is charged with

a crime, whether one reports three or more close friendships, and whether

one is employed. The household support index is standardized yielding co-

efficients that describe changes in the dependent variables for a one stan-

dard deviation change in household support.

Because criminal charges, friendship network size, and employment are

likely to vary with demographics, personal characteristics, and prior in-

volvement with the criminal justice system, the regression models control

for race, sex, age, history of mental illness and addiction, time served dur-

ing respondents’ most recent prison bid, current supervision status, and

total time in incarceration since age 18. A history of mental illness and

addiction is an indicator for whether respondents reported either health

problem at the baseline interview. A dummy variable for time served indi-

cates respondents who were incarcerated for more than three years during

their most recent incarceration. Total adult incarceration is measured with

a dummy variable indicating those who have spent more than half of their

adult life incarcerated. These covariates have been found to be predictive

of re-arrest (Uggen 2000; Huebner and Pleggenkuhle 2013), social contact

(Sampson 1988; Schieman 2005), and employment (Pager 2003; West-

ern et al. 2015a) in other research and are likely correlated with house-

hold support. The regression analysis also includes lagged measures of the

dependent variables. The lagged controls account for other unmeasured

sources of community attachment, distinct from any effect of household

support.

Table 3 displays the means of the dependent and independent variables

by scores on the household support index at four months out of prison.

26

Table 3. Means of dependent and independent variables by household support at4 months.

Household Support Index

Greater thanLess than or equal toMedian Median Total

Dependent variablesCriminal Charge .22 .14 .18Network Size .38 .45 .41Employment .44 .62 .53

Independent variablesBlack .51 .54 .52Latino .18 .18 .18Male .88 .86 .87Less than age 31 .28 .43 .35Mentally ill/addicted .46 .20 .33More than 3 years served .28 .34 .31Probation/Parole .63 .64 .64Total adult incarceration .54 .48 .51Charge at 2 months .11 .02 .06Network at 1 week .30 .51 .40Employed at 1 week .12 .23 .18

Total (N) 57 56 113

Those in more supportive households were less likely to be charged with a

crime, tended to have larger social networks, and were more likely to be

employed. Household support does not vary much by race, sex, or supervi-

sion status. However, older respondents and those with histories of mental

illness and addiction tended to experience lower levels of household sup-

port through four months out of prison. (For more information on Table 3,

see Appendix.)

Table 4 displays the results of two logistic regression models for each

dependent variable. The first includes just covariates and the second adds

a lagged dependent variable. The results suggest that household support

through four months out of prison is significantly associated with a reduced

27

likelihood of a criminal charge later in the year. A one standard deviation

increase in household support at four months is associated with a 43 per-

cent reduction in the odds of a criminal charge (1 - exp[-.562] = .43).

Controlling for a criminal charge earlier in the year slightly reduces the

estimated association with household support, but there is still strong evi-

dence that those in supportive households are significantly less likely to be

arrested over the following eight months.

Household support in the first four months after prison release is not

significantly associated with a larger social network later in the year. The

coefficients are positive, suggesting that those in more supportive house-

holds are more likely to have larger social networks, though the relation-

ship is not significant. This may be due to the fact that older respondents

and those with a history of mental illness and addiction, who tended to

have less supportive households, were significantly more likely to report

larger social networks at the later interviews. Additional analysis might

explore the nature of this relationship. Network measures for older respon-

dents may reflect contact with service providers or counselors rather than

friends or family members.

Table 4 also shows that household support through four months out

of prison is associated with significantly greater employment. A standard

deviation increase on the household support index is associated with a 55

percent increase in the odds of employment over the next eight months

(exp[.437] = 1.55). When controlling for prior employment one week out

of prison, a standard deviation increase in household support is still signif-

icantly associated with a 48 percent increase in the odds of employment

later in the year (exp[.392] = 1.48). Early employment also predicts later

employment, indicating the importance of material stability soon after re-

28

Table 4. Logistic regression analysis of criminal charges, network size, andemployment using pooled six and twelve month post-release interviews.

Criminal NetworkCharge Size Employed

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Household support −.562* −.470* .264 .204 .437* .392*

(2.54) (2.10) (1.49) (1.11) (2.44) (2.05)

Black −.128 −.097 −.020 −.019 −.249 −.149(.28) (.20) (.06) (.06) (.60) (.38)

Latino −.481 −.411 −.697 −.641 −.355 −.295(.89) (.77) (1.32) (1.22) (.68) (.58)

Male −.447 −.183 −.852 −.861 .781 .709(.69) (.25) (1.71) (1.79) (1.44) (1.27)

Less than age 31 −.406 −.424 −1.067* −.999* −.776 −.704(.90) (.97) (2.53) (2.27) (1.92) (1.60)

Mentally ill/addicted −.623 −.452 .771* .745* −.757 −.695(1.33) (.96) (2.25) (2.16) (1.94) (1.79)

More than 3 years served −.380 −.383 .428 .424 .263 .160(.88) (.89) (1.12) (1.12) (.69) (.41)

Probation/Parole −.400 −.485 .334 .297 .628 .614(.98) (1.18) (1.04) (.91) (1.63) (1.63)

Total adult incarceration 1.296** 1.279** −.074 −.107 −.488 −.553(2.77) (2.79) (.20) (.29) (1.30) (1.49)

Charge at 2 months − 1.353 − − − −− (1.94) − − − −

Network at 1 week − − − .355 − −− − − (1.02) − −

Employment at 1 week − − − − − 1.460*− − − − − (2.51)

Intercept −1.142 −1.487 .335 .209 −.077 −.268(1.59) (1.80) (.59) (.36) (.13) (.42)

No. of respondents 113 113 103 103 109 109No. of observations 226 226 206 206 218 218

*p < .05 **p < .01 (two-tailed tests)Note: Absolute z statistics are in parentheses. Standard errors are adjusted forclustering.

29

lease.

Considering only a single measure of residential mobility or composition

fails to convey the multifaceted character of the household as a source of

support in daily life. (See Appendix Table A.2 for regression results using

the individual index items as predictors of criminal charges, network size,

and employment rather than the index itself.)

DISCUSSION

Supportive households – stable and well-resourced – help men and women

develop community bonds as citizens and workers after incarceration. Be-

cause incarceration is destabilizing and released prisoners are poor, sup-

portive households are relatively uncommon in the first months of com-

munity return. Analysis of data from the Boston Reentry Study showed

that nearly 80 percent of a sample of newly-released prisoners moved at

least once in the year after incarceration, and over half the sample lived in

households without earners, or a stable group of co-residents. Still, nearly

10 percent maintained a continuous residence in a stable household, living

with at least several housemates who were working. Qualitative accounts

indicated both the complex householding of released prisoners and the im-

portance of supportive households for subsequent community attachment.

Taken together, residential stability, compositional continuity, and eco-

nomic security contribute to the overall support of a household. When a

stable residence is combined with consistent access to social relationships

and other earners, the household becomes an important source of support

and well-being for the formerly-incarcerated. Early household support can

provide the security necessary to avoid new criminal charges and find work

in the year after release from prison. Regression analysis of survey data at

30

six and 12 months after prison release showed that early household sup-

port is associated with reduced risks of arrest and unemployment. Those

without the protection of a supportive household might be more vulnera-

ble to formal systems of punishment and suffer greater consequences for

daily struggles, such as relapse to drug use or participation in social con-

flict. Without immediate access to a supportive household, resources are

spent trying to find a place to stay and there is less freedom to pursue other

means of economic and social support.

The household is thus a social context that can promote an individual’s

attachment to the community in the year after prison. Emphasis on the im-

mediate social contexts of the recently-incarcerated draws a sharp contrast

with prior work mostly concerned with the effects of individual character-

istics on criminal recidivism.

While this research speaks directly to the problem of prisoner reen-

try, it also suggests the importance of incarceration for related studies

of housing insecurity, social networks, and family complexity. Recent re-

search on housing insecurity among the poor points to the dilapidated

physical condition of low-income housing and the fragile networks of low-

income residents at high risk of eviction (Rosenblatt and Deluca 2012;

Desmond 2012a). The current research shows that incarceration can con-

tribute greatly to housing insecurity by increasing the fluidity of household

composition through the process of prisoner reentry. Research on family

complexity often emphasizes the high rate of father nonresidence and mul-

tipartner fertility in low-income families (McLanahan 2004; Edin, Tach,

and Mincy 2009; Edin and Nelson 2013; Tach et al. 2014). The current

analysis suggests nonresidence should be conceived as a continuum of liv-

ing arrangements. The complexity of family relationships also extends well

31

beyond the case of multipartner fertility, as complex networks of family

relationships involving adults and children are often residing at least tem-

porarily in the same place.

Further research should explore formerly-incarcerated individuals’ own

role in shaping their immediate social contexts. For households that are al-

ready complex or fragile, an additional resident could be a source of strain.

Men and women who struggle with drug addiction or who are involved

in illegal activity might introduce stress and conflict into the household.

However, the current analysis indicates that a significant portion of people

avoid criminal charges and become employed in the year after prison, par-

ticularly those who reside in supportive social contexts soon after release.

Some are able to obtain their own place or move in with a partner and

children. As they expand their participation in free society, many men and

women released from prison are likely to offer support to households in the

communities where they reside.

For those recently released from prison to poor communities, however,

the criminal justice system carries significant weight. Despite their invisibil-

ity to most social research, the data indicate that the formerly incarcerated

are highly visible to the American punishment system. Nearly one fifth

of the sample was staying in a prison or jail 12 months after their initial

release from prison due to violations of correctional supervision or new

criminal charges. Writing about the function of total institutions, Erving

Goffman observed that their effects “in part depend on the suppression of a

whole circle of actual or potential households” (1961:12). Although Goff-

man rightly observes that incarceration displaces conventional households,

it is those households that are most loosely tied together where incarcera-

tion is most likely.

32

The social marginality produced by incarceration thus extends beyond

those who are currently locked up. With little access to independent hous-

ing, low levels of formal employment, and continued involvement with

police and courts, the formerly incarcerated face significant challenges in

establishing supportive households. This paper shows that men and women

who leave prison find support in a variety of living arrangements, though

they would rarely be visible to conventional data collection. The failure

to capture the full spectrum of households in the United States, including

the institutionalized, poses key challenges to the measurement and anal-

ysis of racial and social inequality (Western 2006; Pettit 2012). More im-

portantly, the expanded concept of the household developed here suggests

that a supportive home is uncommon after prison, and a stable place in

one’s community is often elusive as a result.

33

APPENDIX.

Table A.1. Percentage of adults, aged 19 to 59, living in different residencetypes in the U.S. population and among men and women after prison, at oneweek, two months, six months and twelve months after prison release.

After Prison Release

U.S. One Two Six Twelvepopulation week months months months

Streets/no set place 0.0 2.5 3.3 1.7 3.6Group quarters 6.4 32.8 29.2 30.2 37.5

Correctional facility 0.9 0.8 1.7 9.5 17.0Private household 93.6 64.7 67.5 68.1 58.9

Alone 14.4 1.3 1.2 2.5 9.1Spouse 36.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5Partner 8.7 15.2 19.8 20.3 22.7Parent 14.7 36.7 34.6 34.2 28.8Sibling 3.5 12.7 17.3 15.2 13.6Other 22.0 32.9 25.9 26.6 24.2

Total (N) 175,195 122 120 116 112

Note: General population data compiled by the author using an urban subsampleof the 2012 American Community Survey (Ruggles et al. 2015). Group quarters inthe ACS sample includes those in correctional facilities, student housing, residen-tial treatment facilities, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks,workers’ group living quarters, and emergency and transitional shelters (Torrieri2014). The estimated proportion in correctional facilities is drawn from the Bu-reau of Justice Statistics 2012 and includes adults outside of cities (Glaze andHerberman 2013). Group quarters in the BRS includes respondents staying in cor-rectional facilities, residential treatment programs, transitional housing programs,sober or rooming houses, and homeless shelters. For those staying between tworesidences, their primary household is included here. The primary household typeis defined by the survey respondent’s relationship to the householder. For thosewho are householders, the household type is defined as their primary adult rela-tionship in the residence. Most other adults in the general population consisted ofroommates, while those in the BRS sample commonly resided with other familymembers, such as aunts or grandparents, and indirect relatives, such as partners’mothers.

34

Notes on Table 3.

Respondents are divided into those who score below the median andthose who score equal to or greater than the median on the standardizedhousehold support index. A criminal charge measures whether someonewas arrested between two and 12 months out of prison. Because no onewas charged with a crime in the first week out, the earliest time point tocontrol for charges is two months out. Criminal charge data is coded fromcriminal records and thus is complete for all respondents.

Respondents’ friendship network size is drawn from the peer networkgrid administered at the six- and 12-month interviews. Respondents areasked how many people they could talk to about important matters andare then asked to identify three specific people in the network grid. The de-pendent variable used in analysis divides respondents between those whocannot identify at least three people, and those who can identify three ormore people. This code assumes that those who cannot complete the net-work grid might be more socially isolated than those who can list at leastthree names.

Employment status indicates whether someone was employed at the sixor 12-month interviews. This includes on-the-books employment and moreinformal work, such as day labor. Respondents incarcerated at a giveninterview are coded as unemployed, even if they reported working in thecorrectional facility. This work typically paid a few dollars a day and wassignificantly different from employment in the community.

Because network size and employment are coded from interview data,these measures are missing for respondents who missed an interview. Thesedata are imputed for a few missing respondents, through reports of net-works at reincarceration interviews or retroactive reports of employmentat later interviews.

35

Table A.2. Logistic regression analysis of criminal charges, network size, andemployment using individual items from household support index.

(1) (2) (3) (4)Charge (N=226)

Residential stability −.621** - - −.647**(2.90) (2.75)

Compositional continuity - −.248 - .112(1.05) (.40)

Economic security - - −.338 −.244(1.15) (.77)

Network (N=206)Residential stability .097 - - .051

(.46) (.23)

Compositional continuity - .129 - −.003(.69) (.01)

Economic security - - .368 .358(1.39) (1.20)

Employment (N=218)Residential stability .357 - - .383

(1.65) (1.56)

Compositional continuity - .162 - −.272(.80) (1.21)

Economic security - - .670** .763**(2.28) (2.49)

*p < .05 **p < .01 (two-tailed tests)Note: Absolute z statistics are in parentheses. Standard errors are adjusted forclustering. All models control for race, ethnicity, sex, age, mental illness or addic-tion, more than 3 years time served, probation/parole, total adult incarceration,and the lagged dependent variable. Because 6 and 12 month data are pooled, thesample size of each dependent variable counts the number of observations (2 foreach respondent).

36

REFERENCES

Bania, Neil and Laura Leete. 2009. “Monthly Household Income Volatil-ity in the U.S., 1991/92 vs. 2002/03.” Economics Bulletin 29:2100–2112.

Bartlett, Sheridan. 1997. “The Significance of Relocation for ChronicallyPoor Families in the USA.” Environment and Urbanization 9:121–132.

Bayer, Patrick, Stephen L. Ross, and Giorgio Topa. 2004. “Place of Workand Place of Residence: Informal Hiring Networks and Labor MarketOutcomes.” University of Connecticut Working Paper 200407.

Beckett, Katherine and Steve Herbert. 2010. Banished: The New SocialControl in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Blank, Susan. 1998. “Hearth and Home: The Living Arrangements ofMexican Immigrants and U.S.-Born Mexican Americans.” SociologicalForum 13:35–59.

Braman, Donald. 2004. Doing Time on the Outside: Incarceration andFamily Life in Urban America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of MichiganPress.

de la Puente, Manuel. 2004. “Census 2000 Ethnographic Studies.” Tech-nical Report 15, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Desmond, Matthew. 2012a. “Disposable Ties and the Urban Poor.” Amer-ican Journal of Sociology 117:1295–1335.

Desmond, Matthew. 2012b. “Eviction and the Reproduction of UrbanPoverty.” American Journal of Sociology 118:88–133.

Duneier, Mitchell. 1999. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How SingleMothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Edin, Kathryn and Timothy J. Nelson. 2013. Doing the Best I Can: Father-hood in the Inner City. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

37

Edin, Kathryn, Laura Tach, and Ronald Mincy. 2009. “Claiming Father-hood: Race and the Dynamics of Paternal Involvement among Un-married Men.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political andSocial Science 621:149–177.

Finley, M.I. 1973. Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Fischer, J.L. 1958. “The Classification of Residence in Censuses.” Ameri-can Anthropologist 60:508–517.

Geller, Amanda. 2013. “Paternal Incarceration and Father-Child Contactin Fragile Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 75:1288–1303.

Geller, Amanda and Mariah A. Curtis. 2011. “A Sort of Homecoming:Incarceration and the housing security of urban men.” Social ScienceResearch 40:1196–1213.

Glaze, Lauren E. and Erinn J. Herberman. 2013. “Correctional Popula-tions in the United States, 2012.” Technical report, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Washington, DC.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Essays on the social situation of mental patientsand other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Gowan, Teresa. 2010. Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders: Homeless in SanFrancisco. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Groves, Robert M. and Mick P. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in HouseholdInterview Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hammel, E.A. and Peter Laslett. 1974. “Comparing Household Structureover Time and between Cultures.” Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 16:73–109.

Harding, David J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Claire W. Herbert. 2013.“Home is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Resi-dential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners.” The ANNALS of the Amer-ican Academy of Political and Social Science 647:214–236.

Harding, David J., Jessica J. B. Wyse, Cheyney Dobson, and Jeffrey D.Morenoff. 2014. “Making Ends Meet After Prison.” Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management 33:440–470.

Heller, Sara B., Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Send-hil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. 2015. “Thinking Fast and

38

Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout inChicago.” NBER Working Paper 21178.

Herbert, Claire W., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and David J. Harding. 2015.“Homelessness and Housing Insecurity Among Former Prisoners.”Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 1:44–79.

Huebner, Beth M. and Breanne Pleggenkuhle. 2013. “Residential Loca-tion, Household Composition, and Recidivism: An Analysis by Gen-der.” Justice Quarterly pp. 1–27.

Keene, Danya, Michael Bader, and Jennifer Ailshire. 2013. “Length ofResidence and Social Integration: The Contingent Effects of Neigh-borhood Poverty.” Health and Place 21:171–178.

Kertzer, David I. 1991. “Household History and Sociological Theory.”Annual Review of Sociology 17:155–179.

La Vigne, Nancy and Barbara Parthasarathy. 2005. “Prisoner Reentry andResidential Mobility.” Technical report, Urban Institute, Washington,DC.

La Vigne, Nancy G., Christy Visher, and Jennifer Castro. 2004. “ChicagoPrisoners’ Experiences Returning Home.” Technical report, Urban In-stitute, Washington, DC.

Laslett, Peter. 1972. “Introduction: the History of the Family.” In House-hold and Family in Past Time, edited by Peter Laslett and RichardWall, pp. 1–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Barrett A. 1978. “Residential Mobility on Skid Row: Disaffiliation,Powerlessness, and Decision Making.” Demography 15:285–300.

Leverentz, Andrea. 2014. The Ex-Prisoner’s Dilemma: How Women Nego-tiate Competing Narratives of Reentry and Desistance. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men.Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lusardi, Annamaria, Daniel Schneider, and Peter Tufano. 2011. “Finan-cially Fragile Households: Evidence and Implications.” Brookings Pa-pers on Economic Activity pp. 83–134.

39

MacKenzie, Doris Layton. 2006. What Works in Corrections: Reducingthe Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Malone, Daniel K. 2009. “Assessing Criminal History as a Predictor ofFuture Housing Success for Homeless Adults With Behavioral HealthDisorders.” Psychiatric Services 60:224–230.

Martin, Elizabeth. 1999. “Who Knows Who Lives Here? Within-Household Disagreements as a Source of Survey Coverage Error.”The Public Opinion Quarterly 63:220–236.

Martin, Elizabeth. 2007. “Strength of Attachment: Survey Coverage ofPeople with Tenuous Ties to Residences.” Demography 44:427–440.

Massoglia, Michael, Glenn Firebaugh, and Cody Warner. 2012. “RacialVariation in the Effect of Incarceration on Neighborhood Attain-ment.” American Sociological Review 78:142–165.

McLanahan, Sara. 2004. “Diverging Destinies: How Children are Faringunder the Second Demographic Transition.” Demography 41:607–627.

Metraux, Stephen and Dennis P. Culhane. 2004. “Homeless Shelter Useand Reincarceration Following Prison Release.” Criminology & PublicPolicy 3:139–160.

Metraux, Stephen, Caterina G. Roman, and Richard S. Cho. 2007. “In-carceration and Homelessness.” National Symposium on Homeless-ness Research pp. 1–31.

Mykyta, Laryzza and Suzanne Macartney. 2012. “Sharing a Household:Household Composition and Economic Well-Being: 2007 – 2010.”Technical report, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincade. 1997. “Women’s Employment and theGain to Marriage: The Specialization and Trading Model.” AnnualReview of Sociology 23:431–453.

Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journalof Sociology 108:937–975.

Pearson, Frank S., Douglas S. Lipton, Charles M. Cleland, and Dorline S.Yee. 2002. “The Effects of Behavioral/Cognitive-Behavioral Programson Recidivism.” Crime & Delinquency 48:476–496.

40

Pettit, Becky. 2012. Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth ofBlack Progress. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Eco-nomic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rosenblatt, Peter and Stefanie Deluca. 2012. “"We Don’t Live Outside,We Live in Here": Neighborhood and Residential Mobility DecisionsAmong Low-Income Families.” City and Community 11:254–284.

Rossi, Peter H. 1989. Down and Out in America: The Origins of Homeless-ness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rubinstein, Gwen and Debbie Mukamal. 2002. “Welfare and housing–denial of benefits to drug offenders.” In Invisible Punishment: TheCollateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by Marc Mauerand Meda Chesney-Lind, pp. 239–257. New York: Free Press.

Ruggles, Steven, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken,Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. 2015. “Integrated Pub-lic Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0.” Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota.

Sampson, Robert J. 1988. “Local Friendship Ties and Community At-tachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model.” AmericanSociological Review 53:766–779.

Sampson, Robert J. and Charles Loeffler. 2010. “Punishment’s Place: theLocal Concentration of Mass Incarceration.” Daedalus 139:20–31.

Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley.2002. “Assessing ’Neighborhood Effects’: Social Processes and NewDirections in Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 28:443–478.

Sampson, Robert J. and Patrick Sharkey. 2008. “Neighborhood Selec-tion and the Social Reproduction of Concentrated Racial Inequality.”Demography 45:1–29.

Schieman, Scott. 2005. “Residential Stability and the Social Impactof Neighborhood Disadvantage: A Study of Gender- and Race-Contingent Effects.” Social Forces 83:1031–1064.

Sharkey, Patrick and Jacob W. Faber. 2014. “Where, When, Why, and ForWhom Do Residential Contexts Matter? Moving Away from the Di-

41

chotomous Understanding of Neighborhood Effects.” Annual Reviewof Sociology 40:559–579.

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency andUrban Areas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Small, Mario Luis and Jessica Feldman. 2012. “Ethnographic Evidence,Heterogeneity, and Neighbourhood Effects After Moving To Oppor-tunity.” In Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives, editedby Maarten v. Ham, David Manley, Nick Bailey, Ludi Simpson, andDuncan Maclennan, pp. 57–77. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer.

Smith, Raymond T. 1970. “The Nuclear Family in Afro - American Kin-ship.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 1:55–70.

Smith, Sandra Susan. 2007. Lone Pursuit: Distrust and Defensive Individ-ualism Among the Black Poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

South, Scott J. and Kyle D. Crowder. 1997. “Escaping Distressed Neigh-borhoods: Individual, Community, and Metropolitan Influences.”American Journal of Sociology 102:1040–1084.

Stack, Carol. 1974. All Our Kin. New York: Basic Books.

Tach, Laura, Kathryn Edin, Hope Harvey, and Brielle Bryan. 2014. “TheFamily-Go-Round: Family Complexity and Father Involvement froma Father’s Perspective.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Po-litical and Social Science 654:169–184.

Torrieri, Nancy. 2014. “American Community Survey Design andMethodology.” Technical report, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,DC.

Uggen, Christopher. 2000. “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course ofCriminals: a Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism.”American Sociological Review 67:529–546.

Valentine, Charles A. and Betty Lou Valentine. 1971. “Missing Men: AComparative Methodological Study of Underenumeration and Re-lated Problems.” Technical report, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,DC.

Visher, Christy, Nancy La Vigne, and Jeremy Travis. 2004. “Returninghome: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry.” Technicalreport, Urban Institute, Washington DC.

42

Visher, Christy A. and Shannon M.E. Courtney. 2007. “One Year Out:Experiences of Prisoners Returning to Cleveland.” Technical report,Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

Visher, Christy A. and Jeremy Travis. 2003. “Transitions from Prison toCommunity: Understanding Individual Pathways.” Annual Review ofSociology 29:89–113.

Wakefield, Sara and Christopher Wildeman. 2014. Children of the PrisonBoom: Mass Incarceration and the Future of American Inequality. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Warner, Barbara D. and Brandi Wilson Coomer. 2003. “NeighborhoodDrug Arrest Rates: Are They A Meaningful Indicator Of Drug Activ-ity? A Research Note.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency40:123–138.

Warner, Cody. 2015. “On the move: Incarceration, race, and residentialmobility.” Social Science Research 52:451–464.

Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Western, Bruce, Deirdre Bloome, Benjamin Sosnaud, and Laura Tach.2012. “Economic Insecurity and Social Stratification.” Annual Reviewof Sociology 38:341–359.

Western, Bruce, Anthony A. Braga, Jaclyn Davis, and Catherine Sirois.2015a. “Stress and Hardship after Prison.” American Journal of Soci-ology 120:1512–1547.

Western, Bruce, Anthony A. Braga, David M. Hureau, and CatherineSirois. 2015b. “Study Retention as Bias Reduction in a Hard-to-ReachPopulation.” Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University.

Wildeman, Christopher and Bruce Western. 2010. “Incarceration inFragile Families.” Future of Children 20:157–177.

Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko. 1979. “Family and Household: the Analysis ofDomestic Groups.” Annual Review of Anthropology 8:161–205.

43