Re-entry into society after incarceration can be one of the most harrowing experiences. This experience is often wrought with many obstacles, which can lead individuals towards recidivism. Studies show that incarceration affects the offender and their families, even after release (Olver, Stockdale & Wormith, 2011; Scurich & Monahan, 2016). As the United States ranks as having the highest population of incarcerated individuals, millions of citizens struggle each day with the work of re-entering society as contributing members (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). Experiencing these struggles over a period of time can severely increase an individual’s stress level, which can lead to a higher risk of recidivism.

There are external and internal factors ex-offenders must minimize or eliminate in order to remain successful with avoiding recidivism. Moreover, stress-induced recidivism is one of the main types of recidivism, stemming from financial stress due to factors like limited job options and lack of a livable wage. Coupled with the stress of fulfilling familial responsibilities and needs, understanding how individuals successfully deal with the threat of stress-induced recidivism creates a foundation for a solid research study to discover how these intervention methods can be used for helping other current and future ex-offenders do the same.

Purpose Statement

This study will explore perceived expectations of intervention methods for recidivism avoidance by ex-offenders and, by measuring cortisol levels, determine if a physical benefit exists in using intervention methods to avoid stress-induced recidivism (Austin-Ketch, Violanti, Fekedulegn, Andrew, Burchfield & Hartley, 2012). This research study will help deepen the understanding of possible correlations between perceived attitudes toward intervention methods, determine if individual stress levels can potentially indicate recidivism risk, and aid in the creation of re-entry programs that directly address the needs of ex-offenders.

Viable Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study is based upon two main questions:

• How do ex-offenders perceive the benefits of using intervention methods to manage stress-induced recidivism?

• Will cortisol level measurements vary due to perceptions of intervention method use to manage stress-induced recidivism?

The first question is qualitative in nature and will require gathering individual accounts of experiences. The second question requires a quantifiable answer, which can be gathered through cortisol level measurements.

The second question is designed to answer a hypothesis, which states that ex-offenders who utilize intervention methods to manage the threat of stress-related recidivism will have lower cortisol levels than ex-offenders who do not utilize intervention methods to manage the threat of stress-related recidivism. The required data for answering this hypothesis is quantifiable by measuring participant cortisol levels.

Research Plan

This study employs a mixed-methods research design, working with responses and cortisol measurements from participants who are ex-offenders between the ages of 25 to 65. The sample will be selected from responses from inhabitants of 50 halfway houses and re-entry programs administered within the State of Texas. The study author will randomly select 100 ex-offenders to participate, 50 males and 50 females.

Qualitative and quantitative research methods are used to provide a multi-dimensional approach to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Creswell (2009) mentions this approach can work to drastically minimize the threat of single-approach bias. Moreover, examining a research topic from various vantage points can provide a more accurate view and understanding of the topic, interpreted data, and strengthen accurate and efficient implementation and generalization.

As a result, this study is split into two phases. The first phase will focus on gathering self-reported accounts of individual experiences with situations with high probability of stress-induced recidivism. This phase is tasked with gathering and analyzing experiences of dealing with the threat of stress and how it can lead to recidivism. Moreover, this phase is focused on presenting the humanity of the participants, showing how stressful life after incarceration can be without access to certain resources and with overwhelming perception bias towards ex-offenders (Kroner & Yassine, 2013; Scurich & Monahan, 2016).

The second phase involved biometric data by measuring cortisol levels of participants over a period of time. This phase is experimental in that it seeks to determine a statistical correlation between the perception of intervention methods for managing the threat of stress-induced recidivism and cortisol levels. Administering the study phases in this order allows the quantitative data to support the qualitative data. Therefore, management of the threat of stress-induced recidivism is the dependent variable and intervention method is the independent variable.

The first phase will be administered by interview, which will be semi-structured, consisting of an interview designed to address recidivism intervention without restricting participant expression. Participants will be interviewed three times during the study and their cortisol levels will be measured during each of these interviews.

The Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis model will be used to analyze the qualitative and quantitative data after compilation (Smith & Osborn, 2003). The author will maintain awareness of inherent bias while interpreting the meaning of participant experiences. Consistency of the qualitative data will be measured via coding, with the compiled qualitative data being audited by a neutral researcher (Creswell, 2009). The qualitative data will be analyzed to determine standard deviations, means, and score ranges. To determine statistical significance between perceptions of stress-induced recidivism threat management and cortisol levels, a t-test will be used. Threats of validity will be addressed by documenting both study phases. Finally, a follow-up interview will be conducted with study participants, where the study findings will be presented to verify the integrity and interpretation of the study findings.

.

\

References

• Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ↩1 ↩2
• Kroner, D. G., & Yessine, A. K. (2013). Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: In search of mechanisms of change. Law and Human Behavior, 37(5), 321. ↩
• Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). A meta-analysis of predictors of offender treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(1), 6. ↩
• Scurich, N., & Monahan, J. (2016). Evidence-based sentencing: Public openness and opposition to using gender, age, and race as risk factors for recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 36-41. ↩1 ↩2
• Smith, J. A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (2^(nd) ed.) (pp 53-80). London, UK: Sage Publications. ↩