the challenges of reentry

32
Social Work Research – Professor M. Ragonese 10/10/12 Hillel Greene Examining the Similarities of Negative Adjustment by Veterans and Ex-Offenders in the Re-Entry Process Research Problem: The distress veterans encounter when returning home and re-integrating into society have been well documented (Doyle & Peterson, 2005; Ritchie,2005; Zajtchuk, 1995). Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is much discussed (Riggs & Sermanian, 2012), but a soldier's return home can also be accompanied by anxiety, adjustment disorder, psychotic behavior, and substance abuse, among other issues (Marshall, Prescott, Liberzon, Tamburrino, Calabrese, & Galea, 2012; Wain, 2005). While these problems arise from internal feelings, the complications grow when interpersonal/relational situations are introduced. Interpersonal relationships between returning veterans and spouses for example may be particularly troubled; extended separation can lead to growing apart, infidelity, and divorce. Such conditions can result in strained parent-child relationships with behavioral and

Upload: hillel-greene

Post on 19-Dec-2014

98 views

Category:

Health & Medicine


0 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Challenges of ReEntry

Social Work Research – Professor M. Ragonese10/10/12Hillel Greene

Examining the Similarities of Negative Adjustment by Veterans and Ex-Offenders in the Re-Entry Process

Research Problem:The distress veterans encounter when returning home and re-integrating into society

have been well documented (Doyle & Peterson, 2005; Ritchie,2005; Zajtchuk, 1995). Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder is much discussed (Riggs & Sermanian, 2012), but a soldier's return

home can also be accompanied by anxiety, adjustment disorder, psychotic behavior, and

substance abuse, among other issues (Marshall, Prescott, Liberzon, Tamburrino, Calabrese, &

Galea, 2012; Wain, 2005). While these problems arise from internal feelings, the complications

grow when interpersonal/relational situations are introduced. Interpersonal relationships between

returning veterans and spouses for example may be particularly troubled; extended separation

can lead to growing apart, infidelity, and divorce. Such conditions can result in strained parent-

child relationships with behavioral and adjustment problems becoming a byproduct contained

within the next generation (Galovski & Lyons, 2004).

Of significant concern are the high levels of stress and severe adjustment veterans face

as they attempt to re-enter society, which have led them to experience depression and trigger

suicide in increasingly higher numbers (National Guard, 2012; Zoroya, 2012). Prisoners

recently released from custody have also been observed to be at higher risk for suicide than the

general population (Konrad et al. 2007; Pratt, Appleby, Piper, Webb, Shaw, 2010).The troubles

soldiers and ex-offenders face when re-integrating into society are quite similar (connecting with

family, obtaining steady employment, substance abuse issues, loss of a peer group). Soldiers

Page 2: The Challenges of ReEntry

2

return with health insurance via the VA, hopefully have some savings due to paychecks

accumulated while serving abroad where they had minimal expenses, possess valuable skills and

confidence, and encounter supportive family members and a society appreciative of their service,

with support groups in place for camaraderie. Conversely, ex-offenders have no insurance in

place upon their release, often suffer from a host of medical issues, and are forced to navigate the

bureaucracy of the Medicaid system (Mellow, Schlager, and Caplan, 2008). They are normally

lacking in education, have had little chance to save up any money (even if they were in a paying

prison job the salary rate is notoriously low), and may have limited housing options (Baillargeon,

Hoge, and Penn, 2010). Despite these differences, the two populations encounter similar

challenges as they attempt to reenter society and continue with their lives.

Social Workers are committed to enhancing human wellbeing and helping to meet the

basic needs of all people. Attention to environmental forces that create and contribute to

problems in living is specifically identified by the NASW in the Code of Ethics (2008) as a

function of our profession. As both the military-industrial complex and the criminal justice

system continue to grow with few signs of reform, an obligation exists for researchers to focus

on alleviating the challenges individuals face as products of these systems. The perpetual

reproduction of experiences with such adverse consequences requires that researchers examine--

in the hopes of determining and eliminating--the causes of the issues that individuals face upon

their re-entry into society. Documenting the parallel difficulties faced by the two populations,

this paper will examine and compare their re-entry processes, noting the barriers and supports

both returning soldiers and ex-offenders face when returning home, with the aim of identifying

interventions that may be effective when applied to an individual from either group.

Page 3: The Challenges of ReEntry

3

Literature Review:

Though one group is often vilified by society, and another is lionized, a review of the

literature shows that prisoners and soldiers are quite similar in many respects. Recent research

(Doyle & Peterson, 2005; Ritchie, 2005; Zajtchuk, 1995) has documented the troubles veterans

face when attempting to transition to civilian life. Similarly, ex-offenders returning home from

prison have been shown to encounter difficulty as they attempt to reintegrate into society

(Baillargeon, Hoge, and Penn, 2010; Mellow, Schlager, and Caplan, 2008). The similarities

extend not only to the troubles they face when attempting to reintegrate back into their home

lives with loved ones and peers, but also to the environments that isolated them from the rest of

society in the first place. The experiences that each group undergo marks them uniquely, and

with stereotyped beliefs about the two populations becoming more prevalent in our culture via

portrayals in the media, may cause them to internalize a stigmatized label. While much research

has been done on these two distinct populations independently, this review has found no studies

comparing the two populations, the environments that shape them, how they cope with their

struggles and the negative effects incurred during their respective reentry processes, or how they

may come to view themselves as a result of their similar experiences. This study proposes that an

examination of these populations together can be beneficial by exploring these aspects with an

aim to identify effective interventions that can have a positive impact when applied to the

alternative population. Programs and treatments for these populations target similar problems

and either might benefit from an approach meant for the other; additionally, the comparison

study may result in ideas for new interventions with both groups in mind.

Page 4: The Challenges of ReEntry

4

Prevalence:

Recent records (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010) indicate that the number of adult

offenders on parole or other post-prison supervision in the United States increased slightly (up

0.3 percent), reaching about 840,700 parolees at year end. Approximately 13 percent of parolees

were reincarcerated at some time during that year (BJS, 2010) and many incidents of parolees

violating their conditions of release, including re-arrest, and abuse of drugs or alcohol, do not

automatically result in revocation or reincarceration. Few parolees complete their supervision

terms without an infraction of a technical violation and despite assistance upon their release,

parolees encounter significant problems with substance abuse, employment, housing, depression,

aggression, and interpersonal relations (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, Armstrong, 2010; Baillargeion,

Hoge, Penn, 2010; Boxer, Middlemass, & DeLorenzo, 2009).

Since October 2001, approximately 1.64 million U.S. troops have deployed as part of

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)

(Adamson et al. 2008). Deployments for these operations have been longer, used a higher

proportion of the armed forces, commonly involved redeployment, and provided infrequent

breaks between deployments (Hosek, Kavanagh, and Miller, 2006). The advances made in

medical technology and military hardware translates to a greater number of service members

surviving experiences that would have led to death in prior wars (Regan, 2004; Warden, 2006).

These experiences can last years due to multiple deployments and involve frequent exposure to

threats such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and attacks from supposed allies (green on

blue attacks) which require a vigilant awareness of possible threats in one's surroundings.

While advances allow more soldiers to return with fewer physical injuries, many return

with hidden wounds, mental health conditions and impairments to reintegration resulting from

Page 5: The Challenges of ReEntry

5

military experiences. Nearly 20 percent of military service members who have returned from

Iraq and Afghanistan — 300,000 in all — report symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder

(PTSD) or major depression, yet only slightly more than half of those have sought treatment

(Adamson et al. 2008; Wain et al. 2005). Certain literature (Galovski & Lyons, 2004; Khaylis,

2011) has demonstrated the tendency of veterans to use negative coping mechanisms to deal with

such symptoms. Future research focused on dealing with the stigma veterans' associate with

seeking mental health treatment could help alleviate some of the barriers they face when

returning home. The combined number of individuals these phenomena affect seems to be

growing and would dictate that further research in this area is imperative.

Environmental Similarities:

The military and prison are both systems of rules and regulations; life is structured to a

point where routine almost becomes instinct. The shared living quarters lead to the formation of

strong bonds between unit members (some of whom may know each other from previous periods

of deployment or incarceration). While passing downtime via gambling, talking and socializing,

a sense of unity emerges against an explicit or subconsciously designated enemy, thereby

promoting even greater cohesion amongst members of these two populations. Additionally, the

social structure and atmosphere is highly affected by the fact that both populations are

predominantly male. More impactful than other parts of these highly regulated, testosterone-

laden systems, is the fact that both soldiers and prisoners reside in dangerous environments

where they could encounter a life-threatening attack at any moment – such circumstances can

lead to a level of hypervigiliance which produces an anxiety and ripeness for PTSD (Boxer,

Middlemass, & DeLorenzo, 2009; Manderscheid, 2007; Wain et. al. 2012).

Page 6: The Challenges of ReEntry

6

Adjustment Difficulties:

As noted above (Adamson et. al. 2008), PTSD seems to be a pervasive diagnosis in

veterans returning from deployment and recent literature has indicated that PTSD symptoms are

predictive of alcohol abuse (Marshal, 2012), associated with greater marital distress (Riggs,

Byrne, Weathers, & Litz,1998), and lead to higher rates of intimate partner violence (Taft, Street,

Marshall, Dowdall, Riggs, 2007) and higher rates of divorce (Prigerson, Maciejewski &

Rosenheck, 2001). Additionally, studies of children of veterans with PTSD show they experience

greater rates of behavioral problems, academic difficulties, and social impairments

(Harknass,1991; Jordan,1992). Further stress is added to the family when employment is

factored in – previous literature documents soldiers' difficulties coming back to work

(Manderscheid, 2007), concerns with finances (Doyle & Peterson, 2005), and spouses' feelings

of sole responsibility for meeting financial needs of the family (Solomon et al.,1992; Solomon,

Kotler, and Mikulincer,1998). While much literature (Dettbarn, 2012;Mental Health, 2012) has

discussed the prevalence of mental health disorders within the prisoner population, a

significantly smaller amount of attention has been devoted to the damaging effects incarceration

can have on the psyche. Existing research (Woolddredge, Wolff et al., & O'Donnell and Edgar as

cited in Boxer, Middlemass, & DeLorenzo, 2009) would indicate that between 10 to 20% of the

prison population experience physical victimization, thereby creating an environment with an

ever-present threat of physical harm. These encounters with violent victimization and trauma

inducing conditions while incarcerated very well could lead to elevated anxiety for a significant

number of prisoners.

Securing full-time employment continues to be one of the most formidable tasks ex-

offenders face when returning to society (Travis, Solomon, Waul, 2001), and previous research

Page 7: The Challenges of ReEntry

7

records their difficulty engaging with family (Phillips and Lindsay, 2011; Kleis, 2010). Turney,

Schnittker, and Wildeman (2012) documented that recent paternal incarceration increases a

mother's risk of a major depressive episode and her level of life dissatisfaction while a majority

of domestic violence crimes are committed by those who have previously been arrested, with a

significant number having previously violated community supervision (Feder & Henning, 2004).

Exposure to parental incarceration is also associated with higher rates of

maladjustment in children. Similar to the children of certain soldiers

mentioned above who experience behavioral issues, the offspring of

incarcerated parents are more likely than their peers to drop out of school

(Trice and Brewster, 2004) and to be arrested (Murray and Farrington, 2005).

Ex-offenders also cite staying away from negative influences, and abusing drugs or alcohol

(Bahr, Harris, Fisher, Armstrong, 2010) as common issues during community supervision.

Studies (Phillips and Lindsay, 2011) characterize the use of drugs and alcohol as

coping mechanism for ex-offenders in the reentry process and indicate that the onset of

alcohol/substance abuse has been shown to parallel the onset of PTSD in combat veterans

(Gaylord, 2006; Bremner, Southwick, Darnell, Charney,1996). Moreover the level at which one

engages in self-destructive behavior correlates to the severity of one's PTSD symptoms

(Galovski & Lyons, 2004).

Theory:

Modified labeling theory (as described in Winnick & Bodkin, 2008) presumes

stereotyped beliefs are pervasive, and even shared by those so labeled. To account for or manage

a highly discredited status, those labeled will adopt some sort of stigma management strategy,

Page 8: The Challenges of ReEntry

8

including hiding the discredited status (secrecy), avoiding social interaction (withdrawal), and

education (preventative telling). Some ex-offender's deal with their label as an "ex-con" by

immediately owning up to their status; rather than a boss or new personal contact finding out

about their conviction somehow, they will preventatively inform them about their crime or parole

status with the belief that their honesty and forthrightness will be proof of their reform. While

this method of stigma management could result in immediate rejection and further

stigmatization, it also gives the individual greater prospects than withdrawal, which keeps one

positioned outside the opportunity structure, and secrecy which increases tension and precludes

close personal relationships. In modified labeling theory, secondary deviance, such as an arrest

or substance abuse while on parole, is not a direct result of the internalization of the negative

label, but rather an indirect result of coping or stigma management which make deviant behavior

more likely (for example, a parolee who avoids talking to his child's mother might put additional

stress on the relationship, thereby prompting further arguments and her reporting any non-

compliance by the ex-offender to police or parole). Phillips and Lindsay (2011) studied the

struggles of those who were not successful during reentry to identify how these parolees coped

when faced with an impediment to their success reintegration. They identified avoidance as the

predominant method, in which people seek to evade the precipitators of stress with methods such

as abusing substances, avoiding stressors, such as family and treatment, isolating oneself from

friends or family, and engaging in high risk sexual behavior. While avoidance may produce

positive outcomes shortly after applying the strategy, it is associated with negative long-term

outcomes (Suls & Fletcher, 1985).

Ex-offenders' internalization of society's label as pariahs leads them to anticipate

rejection and believe they will be better off if they can hide their status or withdraw from social

Page 9: The Challenges of ReEntry

9

situations where their presence may create a negative reaction. Veterans of OIF and OEF may be

experiencing modified labeling theory in similar ways for various reasons; encountering

tremendous fanfare and proclamations of heroism may reinforce the military culture into which

they were indoctrinated, which trains them to think they should be able to withstand any amount

of pressure and manage any challenge. This mindset increases the stigma surrounding obtaining

mental health treatment and may result in a soldier who is suffering from PTSD, depression or

another disorder, to resort to alternative coping mechanisms. Alternatively, the increased reports

by news media and scholarly journals has drawn attention to the numbers of soldiers returning

from deployment with PTSD and other issues – an individual may seek to avoid being

collectively diagnosed with a group of cohorts simply due to his/her veteran status with a label

that society has characterized as damaged. As with ex-offenders, coping by avoidance may lead

veterans to further isolation and secrecy, the maintenance and stressors of which compel them to

cope via maladaptive mechanisms (e.g. lashing out at family, drug/alcohol abuse, etc.).

Rational for Research:

The similarities in environment and perpetual reproduction of experiences resulting in negative

adjustment requires that researchers examine--in the hopes of determining and alleviating--the

causes of the issues that individuals face upon their reentry into society. Ex-offenders'

internalization of society's label as pariahs leads them to anticipate rejection and believe they will

be better off if they can hide their status or withdraw from social situations where their presence

may create a negative reaction. Veterans of OIF and OEF may be experiencing modified labeling

theory in similar ways for various reasons; encountering tremendous fanfare and proclamations

of heroism may reinforce the military culture into which they were indoctrinated, which trains

them to think they should be able to withstand any amount of pressure and manage any

Page 10: The Challenges of ReEntry

10

challenge. This mindset increases the stigma surrounding obtaining mental health treatment and

may result in a soldier who is suffering from PTSD, depression or another disorder, to resort to

alternative coping mechanisms. Alternatively, the increased reports by news media and scholarly

journals has drawn attention to the numbers of soldiers returning from deployment with PTSD

and other issues – an individual may seek to avoid being collectively diagnosed with a group of

cohorts simply due to his/her veteran status with a label that society has characterized as

damaged. As with ex-offenders, coping by avoidance may lead veterans to further isolation and

secrecy, the maintenance and stressors of which compel them to cope via maladaptive

mechanisms (e.g. lashing out at family, drug/alcohol abuse, etc.). This study proposes

exploratory research to examine and compare the reentry processes, with particular attention to

the barriers and supports both returning soldiers and ex-offenders encounter when returning

home, seeking to determine if they are negatively affected by their label. It will consider

approaches that may allow for other means of coping with an aim of identifying treatment

models that would be effective when applied to both populations. Research questions will

include: Do veterans associate a level of stigma with their label which precludes them from

obtaining mental health treatment? If so, is it due to a feeling of invulnerability inculcated by

military culture, or their anticipation of being classified as part of a damaged population? Do

veterans, like ex-offenders, incur problems during reentry due to developing maladaptive coping

mechanisms due to avoidance and secrecy? Would the preventative education strategy

successfully used by many ex-offenders produce positive results for veterans or would they feel

further stigmatized? Are there coping mechanisms veterans have used successfully during

reentry which ex-offenders might attempt to use? These questions indicate further research is

needed in this area and that these populations could benefit from being studied in conjunction.

Page 11: The Challenges of ReEntry

11

What is Negative Adjustment?

Merriam-Webster defines adjusted as having achieved an often specified and usually harmonious

relationship with the environment or with other individuals. A negative adjustment therefore

would involve a person with a disharmonious relationship with their environment and/or other

individuals. The literature documents individuals from these populations having issues in their

personal lives regarding employment, substance abuse, a predilection for risk-taking behavior,

their personal behavior within the family unit, and how the family unit is affected by the person's

behavior. These categories are explored below with operationalized definitions as indicators of

negative adjustment.

Variables:

Population:

In attempting to examine the difficulties faced by veterans and ex-offenders for this study we

must first look at the existing literature to see how previous researchers have defined these

populations and measured their adjustment to reentering society. The term veteran can apply to

individuals associated with a host of many different branches of service and time periods. For the

purposes of this study, U.S. military servicemembers who were deployed overseas since 2001,

with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) will be focused on

based on their recent experiences and the possible therapeutic implications this study may find

for this population which continues to struggle with issues of readjusting to society. Most studies

involving ex-offenders utilize individuals on parole, or those reentering society from prison, jail,

or another detention facility of some kind. Participants of this study will be on federal

supervised release following a custody term in the Bureau of Prisons. As these populations are

both heavily compromised of men, the study will focus on recruiting men over the age of 18.

Page 12: The Challenges of ReEntry

12

Reentry is often referred to as the process after which prisoners are released and return back to

the community, for the purposes of this study it will be expanded to refer to the time period

veterans return home from deployment.

Employment:

As mentioned above, securing and maintaining full-time employment continues to be a major

challenge for both ex-offenders face and veterans,(Travis, Solomon, Waul, 2001; Manderscheid,

2007). Concerns with finances (Doyle & Peterson, 2005), and spouses' feelings of sole

responsibility for meeting financial needs of the family (Solomon et al.,1992; Solomon, Kotler,

and Mikulincer,1998) has been documented as well. As such, the variable for participants'

employment status will be considered with unemployment for a period over 6 months or having

worked numerous jobs since the start of reentry with each lasting on average less than 3 months,

as measures of indicators of negative adjustment.

Personal Behavior within Family:

The most notable effects currently being reported regarding veterans returning from Iraq and

Afghanistan are portrayed as symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Adamson et.

al. (2008), notes that PTSD seems to be a pervasive diagnosis in veterans returning from

deployment and recent literature has indicated that PTSD symptoms are associated with greater

marital distress (Riggs, Byrne, Weathers, & Litz,1998), lead to higher rates of intimate partner

violence (Taft, Street, Marshall, Dowdall, Riggs, 2007) and higher rates of divorce (Prigerson,

Maciejewski & Rosenheck, 2001). Previous research (Phillips and Lindsay, 2011; Kleis, 2010)

similarly records the difficulty ex-offenders encounter engaging with family upon returning

home. Turney, Schnittker, and Wildeman (2012) documented that recent paternal incarceration

increases a mother's risk of a major depressive episode and her level of life dissatisfaction while

Page 13: The Challenges of ReEntry

13

a majority of domestic violence crimes are committed by those who have previously been

arrested, with a significant number having previously violated community supervision (Feder &

Henning, 2004). In order to measure any stress in the relationship between the participant and his

spouse, researchers would include reports of withdrawal by participant from family activities,

and changes in marital status such as divorce or separation, complaints by participant's spouse of

decrease in their own mental wellbeing or abuse by the participant (physical, verbal or

emotional), and conversely, reports of feeling supported by loved ones.

Effects on Family:

The presence of children in the home adds an additional factor to measure in the participant's

reintegration into the family unit. The offspring of incarcerated parents are more likely than their

peers to drop out of school (Trice and Brewster, 2004) and to be arrested (Murray and

Farrington, 2005). Similarly, studies of children of veterans with PTSD show they experience

greater rates of behavioral problems, academic difficulties, and social impairments

(Harknass,1991; Jordan,1992). Measurement of academic or behavioral problems being

experienced by participant's children would include drug or alcohol use, arrest, formal discipline

by school officials (including academic probation for poor grades), and an uncharacteristically

negative attitude toward other family members/withdrawal from family activities.

Substance Abuse:

Ex-offenders advise that abuse of drugs or alcohol (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, Armstrong, 2010) is a

common recurring problem during community supervision. Phillips and Lindsay, (2011)

characterize the use of drugs and alcohol as coping mechanism for ex-offenders in the reentry

process and research that indicates that the onset of alcohol/substance abuse has been shown to

parallel the onset of PTSD in combat veterans (Gaylord, 2006; Bremner, Southwick, Darnell,

Page 14: The Challenges of ReEntry

14

Charney,1996), is indicative that soldiers may similarly be using alcohol to cope with PTSD

symptoms. As such, abuse of alcohol or prescription medication (having 5 or more drinks per

occasion at least once per week/taking medication that was prescribed for someone else or taking

one's own prescription in a manner or dosage other than what was prescribed), and use of any

illegal drug would be included as a measure of negative adjustment under this study's variables.

Predilection toward Risk:

Ex-offenders also cite staying away from negative influences as an issue during community

supervision (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, Armstrong, 2010) as association with others who have been

previously incarcerated can often lead to poor decision making and a groupthink mentality

leading to adverse consequences. Veterans are not as notorious for criminal behavior when they

are in one another's company as ex-offenders, however Killgore et al. (2008), found that soldiers

who saw combat were more likely to engage in risky behavior upon their return from

deployment. This finding, coupled with the idea that only a fellow soldier can truly understand a

veteran's experiences, may lead to evidence of cohorts of veterans engaging in various dangerous

activities and risky behavior that has negative costs similar to the groups of ex-offenders. The

final determinant of negative adjustment will be the participant's self-report of association with

cohorts previously convicted of a felony, involved in criminal activity, or consistently (at least

once a month) engaged in risky behavior (driving while under the influence, promiscuous sexual

behavior without protection, fighting, carrying a weapon, regular gambling(weekly), arrest,

incarceration, and hospitalization – depending on circumstances).

Methodology:

As no research has yet been undertaken comparing this populations, this study would use a

mixed methods approach seeking to administer surveys and perform qualitative interviews as

Page 15: The Challenges of ReEntry

15

needed for follow-up purposes with a minimum of ten and as many as twenty participants from

each population over the course of six weeks in order to determine if further studies with larger

groups are warranted.

Participants:

Criteria for ex-offenders would include a term of imprisonment of at least 6 months and veterans

would need to have been deployed overseas for at least the same amount of time. Participants

from both populations would have begun the reentry process at least 6 months prior to the

interview in order to provide adequate time for assessment.

Data Collection:

Possible participants will be screened at a local parole office and veteran's hospital (permission

to be obtained by administrators) following which interviews will take place either immediately

onsite or at a time and place convenient to the interviewee. If needed, additional participants may

be collected via snowball sampling. Upon IRB approval, the Coping Inventory for Stressful

Situations (Endler & Parker, 1999) would be purchased and administered to determine if

participants are coping via avoidance or other methods, and a customized questionnaire

(attached) would be utilized to assess level of difficulty participants have experienced in

adjustment.

Analysis:

Participants of the study would need to indicate a moderate level of difficulty in adjustment in at

least 2 out of the 5 variables defined above (employment, personal behavior within family,

effects on family, substance abuse, and predilection towards risk) or severe difficulty in one

variable on the attached survey to qualify as experiencing a negative adjustment during reentry.

This data would be broken down into the two populations and compared with one another to

Page 16: The Challenges of ReEntry

16

measure where each is having issues adjustment issues, the possible causes, and the supports

each have received to evaluate where further resources should be focused for future research and

programming.

As such, it is this researcher's contention that this study will appropriately measure trouble in

reintegration based on the previous literature with a definition of negative adjustment

incorporating the factors of employment status, home life, abuse of alcohol and illegal

substances, and association with peer groups in which they engage in self-destructive behavior as

explained above. Follow-up qualitative interviews of veterans who have experienced little issue

in adjusting upon their return may help shed light on how they have avoided the pitfalls into

which their comrades are becoming increasingly entrenched. Such information on positive

supports or coping strategies may also be helpful for ex-offenders returning to society from long

periods of incarceration who have a history of failing to positively reintegrate during reentry.

Simultaneously, the previous research and continued study of ex-offenders, who have long-

suffered negative effects due to ill-repute, can possibly benefit veterans who are currently

experiencing their own epidemic of stigmatization and assist them in obtaining the interventions

needed to make their safe return home successful.

Page 17: The Challenges of ReEntry

References:

Adamson, D., Burnam, M., Burns, R., Caldarone, L., Cox, R., D'Amico, E., Diaz, C., Eibner, C., Fisher, G., Helmus, T., Tanielian, T., Karney, B., Kilmer, B., Marshall, G., Martin, L., Meredith, L., Metscher, K., Osilla, K., Pacula, R., Ramchand, R., Ringel, J., Schell, T., Sollinger, J., Jaycox, L., Vaiana, M., Williams, K., and Yochelson. M.,(2008) Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Bahr, S., Harris, L., Fisher, J., & Armstrong, A. (2010). Successful Reentry: What Differentiates Successful and Unsuccessful Parolees? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparitive Criminology, 54(5), 667-692.

Baillargeon, J., Hoge, S., and Penn, J., (2010). Addressing the Challenge of Community Reentry Among Released Inmates with Serious Mental Illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 361-375.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010) Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Boxer, P., Middlemass, K., & DeLorenzo, T. (2009). Exposure to Violent Crime During Incarceration: Effects on Psychological Adjustment Following Release. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(8), 793-807.

Bremner, J., Southwick, S., Darnell, A., Charney, D. (1996). Chronic PTSD in Vietnam Combat veterans: course of illness and substance abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(3), 369-375.

Doyle, M., & Peterson, K. (2005). Re-entry and reintegration: returning home after combat. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 76(4), 361-370.

Ending Emotional Suffering Frequent Cause for Suicides, (2012) National Guard.

Endler, N., & Parker, J. (1999). CISS: Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations manual (2nd ed.). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2004). A Comparison of Men and Women Arrested for Domestic Violence: Who Presents the Greater Threat? Journal of Family Violence, 19(2), 69-80.

Galovski, T. and Lyons, J., (2004). Psychological sequelae of combat violence: A review of the impact of PTSD on the veteran’s family and possible interventions, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 477-501.

Harkness, L.(1991). The effect of combat-related PTSD on children. National Center for PTSD Clinical Newsletter. 2, 12-13.

Hosek, J., Kavanagh, J., and Miller, L. (2006). How Deployments Affect Service Members. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Page 18: The Challenges of ReEntry

18

Humber, N., Hayes, A., Senior, J., Fahy, T., & Shaw, J. (2011). Identifying, monitoring and managing prisoners at risk of self-harm/suicide in England and Wales. Journal Of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(1), 22-51.

Jordan, B.K., Marmar, C.R., Fairbank, J.A., et al.(1992). Problems in families of male Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 60, 916-926.

Khaylis, A., Polusny, M., Erbes, C., Gewirtz, A., Rath, M. (2011). Posttraumatic stress, Family Adjustment, and Treatment Preferences Among National Guard Soldiers Deployed to OEF/OIF. Military Medicine, 176(2), 126-131.

Killgore, W., Cotting, D., Thomas, J., Cox, A., McGurk, D., Vo, A., Castro, C., Hoge, C. (2008). Post-combat invincibility: violent combat experiences are associated with increased risk-taking propensity following deployment. Journal Of Psychiatric Research, 42(13), 1112-1121.

Kleis. K. (2010). Facilitating Failure: Parole, Reentry and Obstacles to Success. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(4), 525-531.

Konrad, N., Daigle, M.S., Daniel, A.E., Dear, G.E., Frottier, P., Hayes, L.M., Sarchiapone, M. (2007). Preventing suicide in prisons, Part 1: Recommendations from the international association for suicide prevention task force on suicide in prisons. Crisis, 28, 113–121.

Manderscheid, R. (2007). Helping Veterans Return: Community, Family and Job. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 21(2), 122-124.

Marshall, B. L., Prescott, M. R., Liberzon, I., Tamburrino, M. B., Calabrese, J. R., & Galea, S. (2012). Coincident posttraumatic stress disorder and depression predict alcohol abuse during and after deployment among Army National Guard soldiers. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 124(3), 193-199.

Mental health illness rife in prison. (2012). Australian Nursing Journal, 20(2), 34-35

Mellow, J., Schlager, M. D., & Caplan, J. M. (2008). Using GIS to evaluate post-release prisoner services in Newark, New Jersey. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 416-425.

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278.

Philips, L. & Lindsay, M. (2011). Prison to Society: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Coping with Reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(1), 136-154.

Pratt D., Piper M., Appleby L., Webb R., Shaw J. (2006). Suicide in recently released prisoners: a population-based cohort study. Lancet, 368:119-123.

Page 19: The Challenges of ReEntry

19

Prigerson, H., Maciejewski, P., & Rosenheck, R. (2001). Combat trauma: trauma with highest risk of delayed onset and unresolved posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, unemployment, and abuse among men. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 189, 99-108.

Regan, T. Report: High survival rate for US troops wounded in Iraq. Christian Science Monitor,November 29, 2004.

Riggs, D. S., & Sermanian, D. (2012). Prevention and Care of Combat-Related PTSD: Directions for Future Explorations. Military Medicine, 14-20.

Ritchie, E. (2005).Combat Psychiatry: From the Battle Front to the Home Front. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 76(4), 341-342.

Suls, J., & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efficacy of avoidant and non-avoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 249-288.

Travis, J., Solomon, A., Waul, M. (2001). From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19, 27–35.

Turney, K., Schnittker, J. and Wildeman, C. (2012), Those They Leave Behind: Paternal Incarceration and Maternal Instrumental Support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74: 1149–1165.

Solomon, Z., Kotler, M., & Mikulincer, M. (1988). Combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder among second-generation Holocaust survivors: Preliminary findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(7), 865-868.

Solomon, Z., Waysman, M., Levy, G., Mikulincer, M., Benbenishty, R. Florian, V., & Bleich, A. (1992). From front line to home front: A study of secondary traumatization. Family Process, 31, 289-302.

Taft, C., Street, A., Marshall, A., Dowdall, J., Riggs, D. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder, anger, and partner abuse among Vietnam combat veterans. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 270-277.

Travis, J., Solomon, A., & Waul, M. (2001). From Prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Wain, H., Bradley, J., Nam, T., Waldrep, D., & Cozza, S. (2005). Psychiatric Interventions with Returning Soldiers at Walter Reed. Psychiatric Quarterly, 76(4), 351-360.

Winnick, T. & Bodkin, M. (2008). Anticipated stigma and stigma management among those to be labeled "edx-con". Deviant Behavior, 29,295-333.

Zajtchuk, R. (1995). Textbook of Military Medicine. Washington DC: TMM Publications