Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health & Justice logoLink to Health & Justice
. 2024 Feb 24;12:7. doi: 10.1186/s40352-024-00264-x

Love after lockup: examining the role of marriage, social status, and financial stress among formerly incarcerated individuals

Jemar R Bather 1,2,✉, Anna-Michelle Marie McSorley 1, Brennan Rhodes-Bratton 1, Adolfo G Cuevas 1,3, Saba Rouhani 1,4,5, Ridwan T Nafiu 1,4, Adrian Harris 1, Melody S Goodman 1,2
PMCID: PMC10893755  PMID: 38400934

Abstract

Background

Upon reintegration into society, formerly incarcerated individuals (FIIs) experience chronic financial stress due to prolonged unemployment, strained social relationships, and financial obligations. This study examined whether marriage and perceived social status can mitigate financial stress, which is deleterious to the well-being of FIIs. We also assessed whether sociodemographic factors influenced financial stress across marital status. We used cross-sectional data from 588 FIIs, collected in the 2023 Survey of Racism and Public Health. The financial stress outcome (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) comprised of five constructs: psychological distress, financial anxiety, job insecurity, life satisfaction, and financial well-being. Independent variables included marital and social status, age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, educational attainment, employment status, and number of dependents. Multivariable models tested whether financial stress levels differed by marital and perceived social status (individual and interaction effects). Stratified multivariable models assessed whether social status and sociodemographic associations varied by marital status.

Results

We found that being married/living with a partner (M/LWP, b = -5.2) or having higher social status (b = -2.4) were protective against financial stress. Additionally, the social status effect was more protective among divorced, separated, or widowed participants (b = -2.5) compared to never married (NM, b = -2.2) and M/LWP (b = -1.7) participants. Lower financial stress correlated with Black race and older age, with the age effect being more pronounced among M/LWP participants (b = -9.7) compared to NM participants (b = -7.3). Higher financial stress was associated with woman gender identity (overall sample b = 2.9, NM sample b = 5.1), higher education (M/LWP sample b = 4.4), and having two or more dependents (overall sample b = 2.3, M/LWP sample b = 3.4).

Conclusions

We provide novel insights into the interrelationship between marriage, perceived social status, and financial stress among FIIs. Our findings indicate the need for policies and programs which may target the family unit, and not only the individual, to help alleviate the financial burden of FIIs. Finally, programs that offer legal aid to assist in expungement or sealing of criminal records or those offering opportunities for community volunteer work in exchange for vouchers specific to legal debt among FIIs could serve to reduce financial stress and improve social standing.

Keywords: Formerly incarcerated individuals, Criminal record, Marital status, Social status, Incarceration, Financial stress, Reintegration, Prison, Psychological distress, Financial strain

Introduction

In 2019, approximately 1,700 people were released from prison daily in the United States (Carson, 2020). Upon reintegration into society, formerly incarcerated individuals (FIIs) face a multitude of hardships, including significant legal financial obligations (Ginapp et al., 2023; Harper et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2010; Montes et al., 2021). According to one study, the average debt owed to the courts by FIIs exceeded $13,000 (deVuono-powell et al., 2015). To manage these payments and other living expenses, FIIs often depend on social support systems such as family members, friends, or spouses for financial assistance (Denney et al., 2014; Visher et al., 2004, 2008; Western et al., 2015). However, these relationships can strain over time as FIIs experience extended periods of unemployment (Lindsay, 2022; Montes et al., 2021; Pager, 2003, 2007).

Analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth estimate that nearly half of unemployed men in the United States have a criminal history (Bushway et al., 2022). Research indicates that FIIs encounter challenges securing employment due to shorter work histories, lower educational attainment, and fewer credentials than those without a criminal background (Wakefield & Uggen, 2010). Findings from a randomized experiment showed that managers preferred hiring individuals without a criminal history, despite being equally qualified as an individual with a criminal history (Santos et al., 2023). Insufficient funding often hinders the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase employment among the unemployed (Edelman & Holzer, 2013). Even when FIIs secure employment, the position may offer inadequate compensation, not align with their skillset, or involve physically demanding tasks (Lindsay, 2022; Pager, 2003; Western, 2002; Western & Beckett, 1999). These employment challenges combined with other barriers such as loss of eligibility to apply for certain jobs, licences, student loans, and public benefits can result in substantive financial hardship among FIIs (Chin, 2012; Lerman & Weaver, 2014; Manza & Uggen, 2006; Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002; Rubinstein & Mukamal, 2001; Stafford, 2006).

Spouses often provide emotional and financial support to combat these hardships as FIIs reintegrate into society (Bannon et al., 2010; McKay et al., 2016; Mowen & Visher, 2016). However, literature suggests that these marriages are at an increased risk for divorce due to various factors (Apel et al., 2010; Geller, 2013; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Massoglia et al., 2011; Western, 2006; Western et al., 2004; Widdowson et al., 2020). Spouses may become weary from constantly supporting their partner through emotional and psychological challenges. FIIs often internalize stress, trauma, anxiety, and depression endured during their time in prison from negative interactions with correctional officers and fellow inmates (Binswanger et al., 2007; Visher et al., 2004). Also, the financial burden of incarceration can stress the marital relationship, leading to conflicts about money (Visher et al., 2004). For instance, marital problems may be more likely to arise in larger households with high unmet financial demands or under conditions created by prolonged unemployment, which compound chronic stress (Kraft, 2001; Twenge et al., 2003). This is supported by longitudinal analyses providing evidence that FIIs tend to be economically worse off post-release than before incarceration (Lösel et al., 2012; Markson et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2015). These analyses also highlight the demanding role of the spouse or partner in supporting a FII (Lösel et al., 2012; Markson et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2015). Souza et al. (2015) found that ex-partners of FIIs reported more post-release relationship problems than they initially anticipated during pre-release interviews. Spouses and partners may also witness their formerly incarcerated partner exhibiting cruel discipline towards their children (Markson et al., 2015). Another reason that these relationships may be at increased risk for separation or dissolution is that the spouse may be stigmatized and receive less social support from family members and friends as result of being married to a FII (Braman, 2004; Keene et al., 2018; Turney et al., 2012). The spouse may also constantly worry about their partner reoffending, leading to reincarceration (Goffman, 2009). These tensions and conflicts within the marriage can culminate in divorce, potentially leaving FIIs without financial support from their ex-spouse. Additionally, FII may perceive themselves as having lower societal status after the marriage is dissolved (Porter, 2014).

Perceived social ranking, or subjective social status (Adler et al., 2000), is important to examine among FIIs, particularly within the context of marriage and financial stress. It may serve as a protective factor among FIIs, as having a spouse and higher perceived social status can provide access to financial resources and professional networks (Conger et al., 2010). Research indicates that higher perceived social status is linked to better self-rated physical health (Ostrove et al., 2000). There is also evidence that subjective social status measures (e.g., MacArthur Scale) predict health and well-being outcomes better than traditional socioeconomic indicators, such as income and education (Garza et al., 2017; Singh-Manoux et al., 2005; Tan et al., 2020). In addition, subjective social status measures tap into constructs not captured by income and education variables (Galvan et al., 2022). Hence, analyzing perceived social status levels across different marital status groups may help us elucidate disparities in financial stress among FIIs and identify intervention opportunities. This is critical since medical issues among FIIs often go untreated due to financial hardship (Begun et al., 2016). Therefore, we analyzed a subsample of 588 FIIs from the 2023 Survey of Racism and Public Health to test associations between marriage, social status, and financial stress. We also assessed whether sociodemographic factors influenced financial stress across marital status groups.

Methods

Study population

We hired Qualtrics Research Services (QRS) to recruit participants, collect online survey data, and provide incentives to participants. The web-based cross-sectional survey collected sociodemographic information, self-reported experiences with discrimination, social status, financial and food insecurity, voting practices, policing experiences, and health. Our team provided QRS with the survey URL and back-end access to an institutional account to host and manage the data collection. Our research team did not recruit or interact with participants. QRS recruited qualified respondents from Qualtrics’ panel sources, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and sampling quota. Criteria for selecting the participants were as follows: 18 years or older, English-speaking/reading, and living in Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Virginia (areas within Health and Human Services Regions 1, 2, or 3). The samling quotas provided to QRS were demographic variables that oversampled racial/ethnic minoritized groups. The following demographic quotas were requested from QRS: age (30% aged 18–34, 32% aged 35–54, and 38% aged 55 or older) and racial/ethnic (50% White, 20% Black, 20% Latinx, and 10% Other) groups. The survey went live in March 2023 and closed in April 2023 once the target demographic quotas were met. Profiling data for online survey participants were collected using larger internal surveys that were interspersed between client surveys according to QRS’ standard panel management practices. Panelists have joined the QRS panel through hundreds of different recruitment sources, including direct sign-up, co-registration offers on partners’ websites, targeted emails sent by online partners to their audiences, graphical and text banner placement on partners’ websites, trade show presentations, targeted postal mail invitations, TV advertisements, member referrals, and telephone recruitment of targeted populations. The survey consisted of 84 questions and the average time to survey completion was 15 min.

Over 9,000 individuals (N = 9,096) were recruited to complete the 2023 Survey of Racism and Public Health (Fig. 1). Of these, 44% did not consent to participate (n = 1,106), did not complete the survey (n = 542), or were removed through QRS data cleaning (n = 2,389). Reasons for removal through data cleaning included: non-sensical answers, duplicates, bots, contradictory responses, infeasible response values for weight or height, and invalid IP address. The remaining 56% (n = 5,059) consented to participate and completed the survey. Among these 5,059 study participants, 4,464 were excluded because of no incarceration history, and seven individuals were excluded because of missing outcome or condition information (outcome: n = 6, marital status: n = 1). The final analytic sample was selected based on participants who self-reported “yes” to “Have you ever been incarcerated?” This resulted in a sample of 588 FIIs. All study participants were compensated with cash, loyalty rewards, or gift cards by a QRS third-party vendor.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Recruitment flow diagram, Survey of Racism and Public Health, 2023

Financial stress

We evaluated financial stress using an adapted version of the APR Financial Stress Scale (Heo et al., 2020), which consists of five constructs: psychological distress, financial anxiety, job insecurity, life satisfaction, and financial well-being (Table 1). Psychological distress was measured with the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) (Kessler et al., 2002), assessing feelings of sadness, nervousness, restlessness, hopelessness, effortfulness, and worthlessness over the past 30 days. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) none of the time to (5) all of the time (Cronbach’s α = 0.91). The remaining constructs (financial anxiety, job insecurity, life satisfaction, and financial well-being) used a 5-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Financial anxiety was measured using two items from the Financial Anxiety Scale (Archuleta et al., 2013): “I feel anxious about my financial situation” and “I worry about my financial situation” (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Job insecurity was assessed using one item developed by Hellgren et al. (1999): “I am worried about having to leave my job before I would like to”. We measured life satisfaction using two items from the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985): “In most ways my life is close to my ideal” and “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing” (Cronbach’s α = 0.71). Both life satisfaction items were reverse coded. We assessed financial well-being using four items derived from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Well-Being Scale (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2015): “I could handle a major unexpected expense” (reverse coded); “Because of my money situation, I feel like I will never have the things I want in life”; “I can enjoy life because of the way I am managing my money” (reverse coded); and “Giving a gift for a wedding, birthday or other occasion would put a strain on my finances for the month” (Cronbach’s α = 0.69). Scores for each of the five constructs were summed to create a financial stress index (range: 18–72). Higher scores indicated greater financial stress. The overall financial stress index comprised of all five constructs demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Table 1.

Components of the financial stress index, Survey of Racism and Public Health, 2023

Dimension Validated Scale # Items Assessment Cronbach’s α
Financial Stress APR Financial Stress Scale (Heo et al., 2020) 15 Affective reactions, relational behavior, and physiological responses to financial stress 0.86
Subscales
 Psychological distress Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2002) 6 Risk for severe mental disorders 0.91
 Financial anxiety Financial Anxiety Scale (Archuleta et al., 2013) 2 Heightened financial distress levels 0.87
 Job insecurity Measure of Quantitative Insecurity (Hellgren et al., 1999) 1 Perceived threat to continued employment –
 Life satisfaction Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) 2 Overall judgment of one’s life 0.71
 Financial well-being Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Well-Being Scale (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2015) 4 The degree to which one’s financial condition and capability have offered them a sense of security and freedom 0.69
Open in a new tab

Marital and social status

Marital status was categorized as married/living with a partner, divorced/separated/widowed, or never married. We assessed perceived social status using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status – Adult Version (Adler et al., 2000). Participants ranked themselves from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) on the following question: “Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in our society. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off, those who have the most money, the most education, and the best jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off, those who have the least money, the least education, and the worst jobs or no job. Where would you place yourself on this ladder? Please select the number that best represents where you would be on this ladder.” Higher scores indicated higher perceived social status.

Sociodemographic characteristics

We recoded the following covariates for this analysis: age (quartiles: 18–36, 37–44, 45–57, 58–90), race/ethnicity (White, Black, Latinx, Multiracial/Other), gender identity (man, woman), educational attainment (≤ high school, some college, ≥ college degree), employment status (full/part-time, other), and number of dependents (0, 1, 2 +). Participants who identified as non-Hispanic American Indian, Native American, Arab, Middle Eastern, North African, Asian American, or Pacific Islander were categorized as “other” race/ethnicity. Those on temporary leave, unemployed, not working by choice, independent contractors, or business owners were categorized as the “other” employment status group.

Analytic strategy

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Kruskal–Wallis rank sum tests and Pearson’s Chi-squared tests were conducted to identify differences in characteristics by marital status. We used multivariable linear regression models to estimate the individual and combined effects of marital and social status (Hidalgo & Goodman, 2013). We also stratified these models to assess whether effects of social status and sociodemographics differed by marital status. We presented beta estimates with 95% confidence intervals. We used R (R Core Team, 2023) to perform all statistical analyses and set statistical significance at a p-value of < 0.05.

Results

Study population characteristics

The 588 respondents had a mean age of 46 (SD = 14) and were primarily White (44%) or Black (28%) and idenitified as a man (69%) (Table 2). Of the 588 respondents, 47% were married/living with a partner, 33% were never married, and 20% were divorced/separated/widowed. Many of the respondents had some college education (61%), worked full/part-time (57%), and had at least one dependent (53%). The average financial stress score was 46 (SD = 11), and the average social status ranking was 5 (SD = 2).

Table 2.

Survey of Racism and Public Health study participant characteristics, March 10 to April 12, 2023

Characteristic Overall Never married Divorced/Separated/Widowed Married/Living with partner
N N = 588 N = 193 N = 119 N = 276 P-value1
Financial Stress 588 0.20
 Mean (SD) 46.0 (11.0) 47.2 (10.6) 45.5 (10.7) 45.3 (11.3)
Social Status 588  < 0.001
 Mean (SD) 5.0 (2.2) 4.5 (2.0) 4.7 (2.1) 5.4 (2.3)
Age 588  < 0.001
 Mean (SD) 46.1 (13.9) 41.5 (12.3) 53.4 (12.8) 46.2 (14.1)
Age quartiles, n (%) 588  < 0.001
 18–36 158 (27%) 70 (36%) 13 (11%) 75 (27%)
 37–44 136 (23%) 51 (26%) 18 (15%) 67 (24%)
 45–57 155 (26%) 47 (24%) 39 (33%) 69 (25%)
 58–90 139 (24%) 25 (13%) 49 (41%) 65 (24%)
Race/ethnicity, n (%) 586  < 0.001
 White 255 (44%) 63 (33%) 60 (50%) 132 (48%)
 Black 167 (28%) 75 (39%) 31 (26%) 61 (22%)
 Latinx 105 (18%) 29 (15%) 19 (16%) 57 (21%)
 Multiracial/Other 59 (10%) 25 (13%) 9 (8%) 25 (9%)
Gender identity, n (%) 584 0.30
 Man 404 (69%) 125 (65%) 83 (70%) 196 (72%)
 Woman 180 (31%) 67 (35%) 36 (30%) 77 (28%)
Education, n (%) 583  < 0.001
 ≤ High School 225 (39%) 92 (48%) 45 (38%) 88 (32%)
 Some College 234 (40%) 76 (40%) 50 (43%) 108 (39%)
 ≥ College Degree 124 (21%) 24 (13%) 22 (19%) 78 (28%)
Employment, n (%) 586  < 0.001
 Other 254 (43%) 80 (41%) 71 (60%) 103 (37%)
 Full/part-time 332 (57%) 113 (59%) 47 (40%) 172 (63%)
Dependents, n (%) 588  < 0.001
 0 275 (47%) 117 (61%) 75 (63%) 83 (30%)
 1 141 (24%) 40 (21%) 25 (21%) 76 (28%)
 2 +  172 (29%) 36 (19%) 19 (16%) 117 (42%)
Open in a new tab

1Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test

We identified statistically significant differences in several characteristics across marital status groups. Compared to those who were divorced/separated/widowed (mean age = 53.4 years) or married/living with a partner (mean age = 46.2 years), those who never married tended to be younger (mean age = 41.5 years, P < 0.001). Those who were never married (mean = 4.5) also ranked themselves lower on the social status ladder relative to those who were divorced/separated/widowed (mean = 4.7) or married/living with a partner (mean = 5.4, P < 0.001). Never married participants (48% with HS diploma) had lower education than those who were divorced/separated/widowed (38%) and married/living with a partner (32%; P < 0.001). A greater proportion of those who were divorced/separated/widowed (50%) identified as White (married/living with a partner = 48%, never married = 33%, P < 0.001). A greater proportion of those who were married/living with a partner worked full or part time (63%), relative to those who were divorced/separated/widowed (40%) or never married (59%; P < 0.001). Participants who were married/living with a partner (42% with 2 + dependents) tended to have more children (never married = 19%, divorced/separated/widowed = 16%, P < 0.001).

Associations with financial stress

Table 3 summarizes the adjusted associations between financial stress, marital status, and social status in the overall sample. We observed statistically significant individual and interaction effects of marital and social status. Among the overall sample, lower financial stress correlated with being married/living with a partner (b = -5.2, 95% CI: -9.8, -0.6) and higher perceived social status (b = -2.4, 95% CI: -3.2, -1.7). The significant interaction effect (b = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.1, 1.8) suggests that the association between perceived social status and financial stress varied by marital status. Each increase on the perceived social status ladder translated to a steeper slope (lower financial stress, Fig. 2) among divorced/separated/widowed participants (b = -2.5, 95% CI: -3.4, -1.6) compared to never married (b = -2.2, 95% CI: -2.9, -1.5) and those married/living with a partner (b = -1.7, 95% CI: -2.3, -1.1; Table 4).

Table 3.

Adjusted associations between financial stress, marital status, and social status among the overall sample of formerly incarcerated individuals, Survey of Racism and Public Health, 2023

Characteristic Beta 95% CI P-value
Marital Status
 Never married — —
 Divorced/Separated/Widowed 2.0 -3.7, 7.7 0.50
 Married/Living with partner -5.2 -9.8, -0.6 0.028
Social Status -2.4 -3.2, -1.7  < 0.001
Age
 18–36 — —
 37–44 -3.5 -5.7, -1.2 0.003
 45–57 -4.3 -6.6, -2.0  < 0.001
 58–90 -7.7 -10.0, -5.1  < 0.001
Race/ethnicity
 White — —
 Black -2.9 -5.0, -0.8 0.006
 Latinx -0.4 -2.8, 2.0 0.74
 Multiracial/Other 0.2 -2.6, 3.1 0.88
Gender identity
 Man — —
 Woman 2.9 1.1, 4.7 0.002
Education
 ≤ High School — —
 Some College 0.7 -1.1, 2.5 0.46
 ≥ College Degree 2.2 -0.2, 4.5 0.07
Employment
 Other — —
 Full/part-time -0.1 -2.0, 1.6 0.87
Dependents
 0 — —
 1 0.6 -1.5, 2.8 0.59
 2 +  2.3 0.1, 4.4 0.041
Marital Status x Social Status
 Divorced/Separated/Widowed x Social Status -0.2 -1.3, 0.9 0.69
 Married/Living with partner x Social Status 0.9 0.1, 1.8 0.036
No. Obs 575
Open in a new tab

CI Confidence Interval

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Predicted mean scores of financial stress among formerly incarcerated individuals by marital and social status, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, education, employment status, and number of dependents, Survey of Racism and Public Health, 2023

Table 4.

Adjusted associations between financial stress and social status stratified by marital status among formerly incarcerated individuals, Survey of Racism and Public Health, 2023

Characteristic Never married Divorced/Separated/Widowed Married/Living with partner
Beta 95% CI P-value Beta 95% CI P-value Beta 95% CI P-value
Social Status -2.2 -2.9, -1.5  < 0.001 -2.5 -3.4, -1.6  < 0.001 -1.7 -2.3, -1.1  < 0.001
Age
 18–36 — — — — — —
 37–44 -3.1 -6.6, 0.4 0.08 2.8 -4.3, 9.9 0.44 -4.9 -8.4, -1.6 0.005
 45–57 -2.7 -6.5, 1.1 0.16 1.0 -5.3, 7.3 0.75 -6.9 -10.4, -3.4 0.001
 58–90 -7.3 -12.1, -2.4 0.003 -1.9 -8.6, 4.7 0.56 -9.7 -13.8, -5.7  < 0.001
Race/ethnicity
 White — — — — — —
 Black -3.3 -6.7, 0.1 0.06 -2.7 -7.2, 1.8 0.24 -2.4 -5.8, 0.9 0.15
 Latinx -0.9 -5.5, 3.6 0.68 -0.7 -6.2, 4.7 0.80 -0.8 -4.2, 2.7 0.67
 Multiracial/Other 1.5 -2.9, 5.9 0.51 1.1 -5.7, 7.9 0.74 -1.7 -6.2, 2.9 0.47
Gender identity
 Man — — — — — —
 Woman 5.1 2.1, 8.0 0.001 1.5 -2.4, 5.4 0.45 1.8 -1.2, 4.8 0.24
Education
 ≤High School — — — — — —
 Some College 2.2 -0.7, 5.2 0.14 -1.8 -5.7, 2.0 0.35 0.1 -2.8, 3.0 0.94
 ≥College Degree -0.3 -4.8, 4.1 0.89 -2.4 -7.4, 2.6 0.35 4.4 1.0, 7.8 0.012
Employment
 Other — — — — — —
 Full/part-time -0.4 -3.3, 2.5 0.79 2.8 -1.1, 6.6 0.15 -2.3 -5.2, 0.6 0.11
Dependents
 0 — — — — — —
 1 -0.7 -4.3, 2.8 0.68 1.9 -3.0, 6.7 0.45 1.8 -1.5, 5.1 0.29
 2 +  -0.8 -4.6, 2.9 0.67 3.5 -1.8, 8.8 0.19 3.4 0.1, 6.7 0.043
No. Obs 190 116 269
Open in a new tab

CI Confidence Interval

We found that lower financial stress also correlated with older age (37–44 b = -3.5, 95% CI: -5.7, -1.2; 45–57 b = -4.3, 95% CI: -6.6, -2.0; 58–90 b = -7.7, 95% CI: -10.0, -5.1) and Black race (b = -2.9, 95% CI: -5.0, -0.8) in the overall sample. The association of older age, but not Black race, varied by marital status. The difference in financial stress between the 18–36 age group and the 58–90 age group was much larger among married/living with a partner participants (b = -9.7, 95% CI: -13.8, -5.7) than among never married participants (b = -7.3, 95% CI: -12.1, -2.4).

A positive correlation was found between women and financial stress in the overall sample, indicating that women (b = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.1, 4.7) tended to have higher financial stress than men. This association was larger among never married participants (b = 5.1, 95% CI: 2.1, 8.0). Higher education was associated with greater financial stress among participants who were married/living with a partner (b = 4.4, 95% CI: 1.0, 7.8). Lastly, having 2 or more dependents (b = 2.3, 95% CI: 0.1, 4.4) correlated with higher financial stress in the overall sample. This association was greater among participants who were married/living with a partner (b = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.1, 6.7).

Discussion

Understanding the impact of marriage and social status on financial stress is important for promoting the well-being of FIIs. Analyzing data from the 2023 Survey of Racism and Public Health, we found statistically significant individual and interaction effects of marital and social status on financial stress. Specifically, being married/living with a partner or having higher perceived social status was protective against financial stress. However, the interaction effect suggested that the effect of social status was more protective among those who were divorced/separated/widowed compared to those who were never married and married/living with a partner. Findings suggest that bolstering family cohesion and promoting subjective social status may be important intervention opportunities to alleviate financial stress in this population.

The stronger protective impact of subjective social status on financial stress for divorced/separated/widowed individuals, compared to married or single individuals, may be attributed to various factors. Divorce or loss of a partner often leads to a loss of dual-income households, asset division, and potential legal expenses, creating significant financial burdens (Kelley et al., 2018). However, individuals who may have had higher social status before the marriage may experience significantly less financial stress due to their access to social resources, such as financial resources from an extended social network, emotional support outside of a marriage to overcome struggle, or broader community support.

The trends observed in financial stress for individuals of older ages, as well as respondents who identified as a woman, are consistent with previous literature (Harner et al., 2017; Holden et al., 2021; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019). Holden et al. (2021) found that older age was associated with lower financial stress, which aligns with our observations. The higher levels of financial stress that were observed among respondents who identified as a woman, were similarly observed in other empirical investigations (Harner et al., 2017; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019). For instance, a longitudinal qualitative study of 37 formerly incarcerated women in Massachusetts found that, over the course of a 10 year follow-up period, none of the women had been steadily employed. This was attributed to substantial health, legal, gendered, and economic barriers to employment (Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019). Another qualitative study by Harner et al. (2017) reported that common financial stressors among incarcerated women included the inability to afford healthcare, low-wage jobs, and dependence on others. The collective findings from these studies and the present study characterize currently and formerly incarcerated women as a population needing additional attention and support. To further elucidate this gendered experience among FIIs, future studies could examine how this may be linked to the exclusion of individuals with felony convictions from social welfare benefits, as these exclusionary policies are known to have a disproportionate impact on single mothers (Morgan et al., 2023).

Insights from this study highlight the importance of improving health outcomes among FIIs. Chronic financial stress often coincides with prevalent chronic diseases such as asthma, obesity, and hypertension among FIIs (Houle, 2014; Howell et al., 2016; Massoglia, 2008; Visher et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009). Managing chronic health conditions is expensive (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2023), which in turn leads to the majority of FIIs failing to adequately take care of their health needs as they often lack health insurance after release (Massoglia & Pridemore, 2015; Massoglia & Remster, 2019; Visher et al., 2004). In the sample of the current study, 27% (n = 127) FIIs had one chronic disease, and 54% (n = 317) had two or more chronic diseases. Our study also suggests other stressors among this population such as low perceived social ranking. Studies have shown that financial stress and decreased social standing correlate with unhealthy behaviors, including increased rates of smoking and fast-food consumption among FIIs (Porter, 2014). Although outside of the scope of this study, these unhealthy behaviors, coupled with cumulative stressors before, during, and after incarceration demand immediate attention from health scientists and professionals to prevent high premature mortality rates among this population.

Our findings have several implications for intervention efforts to support the reintegration of FIIs into society in a manner that reduces financial stress and unnecessary burden on marital relationships. For instance, understanding that financial stress levels may vary by marital status, providing tailored couseling or financial literacy programs that are inclusive of spouses/partners of FIIs may improve the quality of social and marital relationships (Doleac, 2018; McKay et al., 2016). Outside of the marital relationship, efforts can also be made to reduce the societal burdens that lead to financial stress. For example, the Case Close Project in New York, supported by The Legal Aid Society, provides legal representation, community education, and advocacy and has successfully sealed hundreds of criminal records since 2017 (The Legal Aid Society, n.d.). Funding and replicating these types of programs across the U.S., has the potential to increase FIIs eligibility for employment opportunities and enable them to apply for federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Housing Choice Voucher Program (Mele & Miller, 2005).

Additionally, given the challenges associated with securing employment and the resulting financial strain, providing opportunities for FIIs to volunteer their skills in exchange for monetary vouchers to pay off their legal debt can alleviate their compounding criminal justice-related fees (Pager et al., 2022). These include late payments, local and state financial obligations, and public defender costs (Bannon et al., 2010), which serve to increase financial strain and marital stress. Importantly, evidence demonstrates that FIIs who are given the opportunity to help others (e.g., mutual help groups) have higher self-esteem, better psychological well-being, and report greater satisfaction with life (Lebel, 2007). Ultimately, these efforts may buffer the effects of financial strain after incarceration, reduce recidivism, and improve how FIIs perceive themselves in society.

Limitations and strengths

The findings of this study should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, we did not stratify by the length of time spent incarcerated, though this may impact levels of financial and marital strain and subjective social status. Second, we could not differentiate between married individuals before, during, or after their incarceration, which could have been a potential confounder. Third, our sample consisted of FIIs living in Northeastern or Southeastern states and was recruited as a nonprobability convenience sample, thus limiting the generalizability of this study. This self-reported survey was also subject to recall bias. This study should be interpreted as an exploratory analysis, warranting the need for future research with generalizable study designs. Fourth, indicating incarceration history on a survey may be a sensitive topic. This may have led to some FIIs choosing “no” to respond to the survey, potentially excluding them from the analytic sample. Fifth, the cross-sectional associations observed in this study do not imply causal relationships between marriage, social status, and financial stress. Lastly, we did not conduct a longitudinal analysis of financial stress, thus preventing us from exploring trends over time.

Despite its limitations, the present study has several strengths and makes innovative contributions to the literature. We analyzed a large sample (n = 588) of FIIs living in Health and Human Services Regions 1, 2, or 3, a densely populated area that accounts for approximately 20% of the US population. In addition, we utilized a multidimensional measure of financial stress (Heo et al., 2020), which has not been widely examined among FIIs. This measure encompasses five constructs: psychological distress, financial anxiety, job insecurity, life satisfaction, and financial well-being (Heo et al., 2020). Furthermore, the present study extends previous research by focusing on the financial strain of the FII, rather than that of the romantic partners and family members (e.g., children) of FIIs (Arditti et al., 2003; Comfort, 2008; Davis, 1992; deVuono-powell et al., 2015; Geller et al., 2011; Grinstead et al., 2001; Johnson, 2009). We also assessed the combined associations of marriage and social status as potential mechanisms producing disparities in financial strain among FIIs. Previous studies have primarily focused on the effect of incarceration on marriage quality or dissolution, with limited follow-up studies on married FIIs during reintegration (Apel et al., 2010; Braman, 2004; Geller, 2013; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Massoglia et al., 2011; Western, 2006; Western et al., 2004; Widdowson et al., 2020). By examining differences in financial strain across marital and social statuses during reintegration, vulnerable subgroups within the formerly incarcerated population can be identified and targeted for intervention. Lastly, we leveraged a novel dataset, the 2023 Survey of Racism and Public Health.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we provide novel insights into the interrelationship between marriage, social status, and financial stress among FIIs. We demonstrated that perceived social status and social support received through marriage or partnership were protective against financial strain, with varying effects of social status across marital status. Our research also indicates that formerly incarcerated women experience higher financial stress than men, highlighting the need for additional research and targeted programming to support this subgroup. Findings indicate the need for policies and programs which may target the family unit, and not only the individual, to help alleviate the financial burden of FIIs. Finally, programs that offer legal aid to assist in expungement or sealing of criminal records or those offering opportunities for community volunteer work in exchange for vouchers specific to legal debt among FIIs could serve to reduce financial stress and improve social standing.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

JRB contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, and visualization. AMM, BR, AGC, SR, RTN, and AH contributed to the conceptualization, investigation, resources, data curation, and writing—review, and editing. MSG contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, validation, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing, project administration, and funding acquisition.

Funding

This study was funded by the Center for Anti-racism, Social Justice, & Public Health and the New York University School of Global Public Health.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article can be obtained by emailing a request to the Center for Anti-racism, Social Justice, & Public Health (gph.casjph@nyu.edu).

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained before survey participation, and the study protocol was approved by the New York University Institutional Review Board (IRB-FY2023-7408).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology. 2000;19(6):586–592. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Apel R, Blokland AAJ, Nieuwbeerta P, van Schellen M. The impact of imprisonment on marriage and divorce: a risk set matching approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2010;26(2):269–300. doi: 10.1007/s10940-009-9087-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Archuleta KL, Dale A, Spann SM. College students and financial distress: exploring debt, financial satisfaction, and financial anxiety. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning. 2013;24(2):50–62. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arditti JA, Lambert-Shute J, Joest K. Saturday morning at the jail: implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations. 2003;52(3):195–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00195.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bannon A, Nagrecha M, Diller R. Criminal justice debt: a barrier to reentry. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Begun AL, Early TJ, Hodge A. Mental health and substance abuse service engagement by men and women during community reentry following incarceration. Administration and Policy in Mental Health. 2016;43(2):207–218. doi: 10.1007/s10488-015-0632-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, Koepsell TD. Release from prison—a high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;356(2):157–165. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa064115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Braman D. Doing time on the outside: incarceration and family life in urban America. University of Michigan Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bushway S, Cabreros I, Paige JW, Schwam D, Wenger JB. Barred from employment: more than half of unemployed men in their 30s had a criminal history of arrest. Science Advances. 2022;8(7):eabj6992. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj6992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carson EA. Prisoners in 2019 (NCJ 255115) Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chin GJ. The new civil death: rethinking punishment in the era of mass conviction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review; 2012. p. 160. [Google Scholar]
  12. Comfort M. Doing time together: love and family in the shadow of the prison. University of Chicago Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Conger RD, Conger KJ, Martin MJ. Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2010;72(3):685–704. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . Measuring financial well-being. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis A. Men’s imprisonment: the financial cost to women and children. In: Shaw R, editor. Prisoners’ children: what are the issues? Routledge; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  16. Denney A, Tewksbury R, Jones R. Beyond basic needs: social support and structure for successful offender reentry. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology. 2014;2:39–67. [Google Scholar]
  17. deVuono-powell S, Schweidler C, Walters A, Zohrabi A. Who pays? The true cost of incarceration on families. Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1985;49(1):71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Doleac JL. SSRN Working Paper. 2018. Strategies to productively reincorporate the formerly-incarcerated into communities: a review of the literature. [Google Scholar]
  20. Edelman PB, Holzer HJ. Connecting the disconnected: improving education and employment outcomes among disadvantaged youth. In: Luce S, Luff J, McCartin JA, Milkman R, editors. What works for workers? Russell Sage Foundation; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  21. Galvan, M. J., Payne, K., Hannay, J., Georgeson, A., & Muscatell, K. (2022). What does the MacArthur scale of subjective social status measure? Separating economic circumstances and social status to predict health. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/e9px3 [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Garza JR, Glenn BA, Mistry RS, Ponce NA, Zimmerman FJ. Subjective social status and self-reported health among US-born and immigrant Latinos. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2017;19(1):108–119. doi: 10.1007/s10903-016-0346-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Geller A. Paternal incarceration and father-child contact in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2013;75(5):1288–1303. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Western B. Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography. 2011;48(1):25–47. doi: 10.1007/s13524-010-0009-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ginapp C, Aminawung JA, Harper A, Puglisi LB. Exploring the relationship between debt and health after incarceration: a survey study. Journal of Urban Health. 2023;100(1):181–189. doi: 10.1007/s11524-022-00707-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goffman A. On the run: wanted men in a Philadelphia ghetto. American Sociological Review. 2009;74(3):339–357. doi: 10.1177/000312240907400301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grinstead O, Faigeles B, Bancroft C, Zack B. The financial cost of maintaining relationships with incarcerated African American Men: a survey of women prison visitors. Journal of African American Men. 2001;6(1):59–69. doi: 10.1007/s12111-001-1014-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Harner HM, Wyant BR, Da Silva F. “Prison ain’t free like everyone thinks”: financial stressors faced by incarcerated women. Qualitative Health Research. 2017;27(5):688–699. doi: 10.1177/1049732316664460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Harper A, Ginapp C, Bardelli T, Grimshaw A, Justen M, Mohamedali A, Thomas I, Puglisi L. Debt, incarceration, and re-entry: a scoping review. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2021;46(2):250–278. doi: 10.1007/s12103-020-09559-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Harris A, Evans H, Beckett K. Drawing blood from stones: legal debt and social inequality in the contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology. 2010;115(6):1753–1799. doi: 10.1086/651940. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hellgren J, Sverke M, Isaksson K. A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 1999;8(2):179–195. doi: 10.1080/135943299398311. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Heo, W., Cho, S. H., & Lee, P. (2020). APR financial stress scale: development and validation of a multidimensional measurement. Journal of Financial Therapy, 11(1). 10.4148/1944-9771.1216
  33. Hidalgo B, Goodman M. Multivariate or multivariable regression? American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(1):39–40. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Holden K, Zhao Y, Charles P, Fanning K, Jensen S, Kerr M, Massoglia M, Poehlmann-Tynan J. Consumer Interests Annual. 2021. Financial characteristics and stress of parents in jail: investigating parent’s incarceration and family financial stress and practices. [Google Scholar]
  35. Houle B. The effect of incarceration on adult male BMI trajectories, United States, 1981–2006. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2014;1(1):21–28. doi: 10.1007/s40615-013-0003-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Howell BA, Long JB, Edelman EJ, McGinnis KA, Rimland D, Fiellin DA, Justice AC, Wang EA. Incarceration history and uncontrolled blood pressure in a multi-site cohort. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2016;31(12):1496–1502. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3857-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson R. Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration and the consequences for children. In: Raphael S, Stoll MA, editors. Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom. Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  38. Keene DE, Smoyer AB, Blankenship KM. Stigma, housing and identity after prison. The Sociological Review. 2018;66(4):799–815. doi: 10.1177/0038026118777447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kelley, H. H., LeBaron, A. B., & Hill, E. J. (2018). Financial stress and marital quality: the moderating influence of couple communication. Journal of Financial Therapy, 9(2). 10.4148/1944-9771.1176
  40. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SLT, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine. 2002;32(6):959–976. doi: 10.1017/s0033291702006074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kraft K. Unemployment and the separation of married couples. Kyklos. 2001;54(1):67–88. doi: 10.1111/1467-6435.00141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lebel TP. An examination of the impact of formerly incarcerated persons helping others. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2007;46(1–2):1–24. doi: 10.1080/10509670802071485. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lerman AE, Weaver V. Arresting citizenship: the democratic consequences of American crime control. University of Chicago Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lindsay SL. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: how formerly incarcerated men navigate the labor market with prison credentials. Criminology. 2022;60(3):455–479. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lopoo LM, Western B. Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67(3):721–734. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00165.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lösel F, Pugh G, Markson L, Souza KA, Lanskey C. Milton: Ormiston children and families trust. 2012. Risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers with their families. [Google Scholar]
  47. Manza J, Uggen C. Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  48. Markson L, Lösel F, Souza K, Lanskey C. Male prisoners’ family relationships and resilience in resettlement. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 2015;15(4):423–441. doi: 10.1177/1748895814566287. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Massoglia M. Incarceration as exposure: the prison, infectious disease, and other stress-related illnesses. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2008;49(1):56–71. doi: 10.1177/002214650804900105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Massoglia M, Pridemore WA. Incarceration and health. Annual Review of Sociology. 2015;41(1):291–310. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Massoglia M, Remster B. Linkages between incarceration and health. Public Health Reports. 2019;134(1_suppl):8S–14S. doi: 10.1177/0033354919826563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Massoglia M, Remster B, King RD. Stigma or separation? Understanding the incarceration-divorce relationship. Social Forces. 2011;90(1):133–155. doi: 10.1093/sf/90.1.133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mauer M, Chesney-Lind M. Invisible punishment: the collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. The New Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  54. McKay T, Comfort M, Lindquist C, Bir A. If family matters supporting family relationships during incarceration and reentry. Criminology & Public Policy. 2016;15(2):529–542. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mele C, Miller TA. Civil penalties. Routledge; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  56. Montes AN, Wallace D, Fahmy C, Henson A, Chamberlain AW, Jacobs LA. An assessment of prisoner reentry, legal financial obligations and family financial support: a focus on fathers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(18):9625. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18189625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Morgan AA, Kosi-Huber J, Farley TM, Tadros E, Bell AM. Felons need not apply: the tough-on-crime era’s felony welfare benefits ban and its impact on families with a formerly incarcerated parent. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2023;32(2):613–625. doi: 10.1007/s10826-022-02400-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mowen TJ, Visher CA. Changing the ties that bind how incarceration impacts family relationships. Criminology & Public Policy. 2016;15(2):503–528. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12207. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion . Health and economic costs of chronic diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ostrove JM, Adler NE, Kuppermann M, Washington AE. Objective and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to self-rated health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women. Health Psychology. 2000;19(6):613–618. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Pager D. The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology. 2003;108(5):937–975. doi: 10.1086/374403. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Pager D. Marked: race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. University of Chicago Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pager D, Goldstein R, Ho H, Western B. Criminalizing poverty: the consequences of court fees in a randomized experiment. American Sociological Review. 2022;87(3):529–553. doi: 10.1177/00031224221075783. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Porter LC. Incarceration and post-release health behavior. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2014;55(2):234–249. doi: 10.1177/0022146514531438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rubinstein G, Mukamal D. Welfare and housing—denial of benefits to drug offenders. In: Mauer M, Chesney-Lind M, editors. Invisible punishment: the collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. The New Press; 2001. pp. 37–49. [Google Scholar]
  67. Santos MR, Jaynes CM, Thomas DM. How to overcome the cost of a criminal record for getting hired. Criminology. 2023 doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12345. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Sered S, Norton-Hawk M. Triple jeopardy: women’s employment struggles postincarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2019;58(4):261–280. doi: 10.1080/10509674.2019.1596191. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Singh-Manoux A, Marmot MG, Adler NE. Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005;67(6):855–861. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000188434.52941.a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Souza KA, Lösel F, Markson L, Lanskey C. Pre-release expectations and post-release experiences of prisoners and their (ex-)partners. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2015;20(2):306–323. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Stafford C. finding work: how to approach the intersection of prisoner reentry, employment, and recidivism. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy. 2006;13(2):261–282. [Google Scholar]
  72. Tan JJX, Kraus MW, Carpenter NC, Adler NE. The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2020;146(11):970–1020. doi: 10.1037/bul0000258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011;2:53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. The Legal Aid Society. (n.d.). Case closed project. Retrieved August 29, 2023, from https://legalaidnyc.org/programs-projects-units/case-closed-project/
  75. Turney K, Schnittker J, Wildeman C. Those they leave behind: paternal incarceration and maternal instrumental support. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012;74(5):1149–1165. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00998.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Twenge JM, Campbell WK, Foster CA. Parenthood and marital satisfaction: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65(3):574–583. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Visher CA, Debus S, Yahner J. Employment after prison: a longitudinal study of releasees in three states. The Urban Institute; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  78. Visher CA, LaVigne N, Travis J. Returning home: understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry – Maryland pilot study: findings from Baltimore. The Urban Institute; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wakefield S, Uggen C. Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology. 2010;36(1):387–406. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102551. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang EA, Pletcher M, Lin F, Vittinghoff E, Kertesz SG, Kiefe CI, Bibbins-Domingo K. Incarceration, incident hypertension, and access to health care: findings from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009;169(7):687–693. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Western B. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. American Sociological Review. 2002;67(4):526–546. doi: 10.2307/3088944. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Western B. Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  83. Western B, Beckett K. How unregulated is the us labor market? The penal system as a Labor Market Institution. American Journal of Sociology. 1999;104(4):1030–1060. doi: 10.1086/210135. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Western B, Braga AA, Davis J, Sirois C. Stress and hardship after prison. American Journal of Sociology. 2015;120(5):1512–1547. doi: 10.1086/681301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Western B, Lopoo LM, McLanahan S. Incarceration and the bonds between parents in fragile families. In: Pattillo M, Weiman D, Western B, editors. Imprisoning America: the social effects of mass incarceration. Russell Sage; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  86. Widdowson AO, Jacobsen WC, Siennick SE, Warren PY. Together despite the odds: explaining racial and ethnic heterogeneity in union dissolution after incarceration. Criminology. 2020;58(1):129–155. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12232. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article can be obtained by emailing a request to the Center for Anti-racism, Social Justice, & Public Health (gph.casjph@nyu.edu).

Articles from Health & Justice are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES