Introduction

Decades of mass incarceration and subsequent mass reentry in the United States have devastated individuals, families, and communities caught in the system. Scholars increasingly recognize the cyclical nature of carceral entanglements, analyzing the breadth of carceral citizenship, the reentry-reincarceration cycle, and the carceral continuum (Harding et al., 2017). Knight (2024) depicts how “carceral passages” unfold over the life course and how long-term connection to the carceral system shapes the early adulthood of formerly and currently incarcerated Black men. Desistance research calls for a greater understanding of the narratives, identity transformations, and cognitive shifts necessary when a person is released from incarceration and attempts to build a law-abiding and meaningful life (Bachman et al., 2016; Harding et al., 2016; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009). Moreover, Western and Harding (2022) argue for shifting focus from individual pathways of offending to the broader study of “criminalized careers,” acknowledging the harmful, often criminogenic system-level responses that shape life trajectories.

In the United States, contact with the carceral system, including legal and financial obligations such as fines, fees, and community supervision requirements, often entraps people in a perpetual status of “reentering” (Miller, 2014; Western & Harding, 2022). Byrd (2016) describes reentry as “punishment’s twin,” not just a byproduct of mass incarceration, but a continuation of structural dislocation and cumulative disadvantage that existed before one’s entry into the correctional system. Reentry impacts people across multiple life domains, including family, housing, employment, physical and mental health, and community ties, and capturing these multilayered and intersectional dimensions is crucial (Bunn, 2019; Fader & Traylor, 2015; Semenza & Silver, 2022). Yet, theoretical and methodological constraints often lead reentry studies to focus on release from one type of institution (e.g., prison, jail, or community-based facility) or on a specific life domain in isolation. Even longitudinal research typically treats reentry experiences as discrete events, rather than ongoing processes. Given existing gaps, our work advances conceptualizations of the cyclical nature of the reentry experience through analysis of in-depth interviews with formerly incarcerated men in the Northeastern United States. We address three research questions: (1) How does formerly incarcerated men’s repeated contact with the carceral system shape their conceptions and experiences of reentry? (2) What are the implications of this contact for reentry needs between and across key life domains? (3) How do men envision the potential for desistance after repeated contacts with the system?

The rich insights from our participants illustrate the pathways of formerly incarcerated men’s correctional involvement, contributing to several bodies of literature that are often compartmentalized but have critical points of convergence that enhance understanding of the reentry process. Our literature review draws on conceptual frameworks that highlight the pervasiveness of carceral contact among marginalized populations, the intersections of reentry across key life domains, and narrative and life course criminology related to reentry and reintegration. Through our analysis, we demonstrate the value of bridging theoretical and policy-focused reentry research, moving beyond the typical emphasis on recidivism as the outcome and embedding reentry into life course perspectives (Andersen et al., 2020; DeVeaux, 2022; Liu & Bachman, 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022).

Reentry as Policy Process and a Dimension of the Life Course

Over two decades ago, Visher and Travis (2003) laid important groundwork for understanding reentry and reintegration as dynamic, multi-level processes influenced by individual, familial, community, and policy-level factors. They highlighted the relevance of pre-prison, prison, and post-release experiences, defining reentry as the administrative process following release from confinement back into the community, and reintegration as building a life with hope, belonging, and meaning. Since then, research and policy about reentry have expanded to include release from both prison and jail (Freudenberg et al., 2005; Miller & Miller, 2010; Turney & Conner, 2019). Further, scholars have advanced understanding of the developmental context of reentry, demonstrating that release from confinement in early adulthood limits young men’s pathways toward independence (Fader, 2013) and creates a “developmental paradox,” as they are expected to meet adult milestones while being severely hampered from doing so (Arditti & Parkman, 2011). For the current research, we analyze relevant literature on the ubiquity of carceral contact and subsequent intersecting reentry needs, as well as aspects of life course theory related to reentry, reintegration, and desistance.

Carceral Contact and Intersecting Reentry Needs

Research in the United States and internationally recognizes the harmful consequences of pervasive contact with the carceral system. Miller and Stuart (2017) propose “carceral citizenship” to capture the ubiquity of this contact for socially and economically marginalized members of racial and ethnic minorities. Balfour and colleagues (2019) similarly note that reentry occurs within “a deeply entrenched, nonlinear carceral continuum that has various nuanced racialized, stratified, and gendered effects on communities and populations” (p. 35). In the United Kingdom, Cracknell (2023) analyzed the “resettlement net,” which extends supervision of people serving short sentences into the community, blurring the boundaries between care and control and hindering reintegration. These and other scholars advancing the theoretical knowledge of punishment illuminate the limitations of clear-cut demarcations between incarceration and reentry. As punishment is increasingly understood through interconnection, liminality, and flow, so too must reentry.

Once released, formerly incarcerated people have a range of immediate and long-term reentry needs across key life domains, including employment, housing, health care, family relationships, and returning to disadvantaged neighborhoods (Harding et al., 2019; Leverentz, 2022; Middlemass, 2017; Troshynski & Willis, 2023; Western, 2018). For example, Ramakers et al. (2024), in their study of labor market participation among justice-involved individuals in the Netherlands, found that most remained unemployed years after their confinement release, suggesting “popular definitions of successful reintegration are unrealistic” and incongruent “with the dominant role of employment-focused re-entry programs” (p. 17). Troshynski and Willis (2023) use the concept “borderline homeless” to capture the precarity formerly incarcerated people face in stabilizing their living situations and lives more broadly, as housing is foundational for other domains of reentry. Such reentry challenges are compounded by repeated churning through the carceral system (Halushka, 2020; Middlemass, 2017; Western & Harding, 2022) and racialized barriers that deepen exclusion, particularly for Black and Brown men (Couloute, 2024; DeVeaux, 2022; Williams et al., 2019).

Moreover, scholars have shown that the burdens of reentry often extend beyond the individual with system contact to family, friends, and broader community networks. Miller (2021) poignantly depicts the far-reaching physical, emotional, and financial tolls of reentry for individuals and their loved ones, which are often intertwined with the harms of incarceration (see also Wakefield, 2022, for a comprehensive review of impacts beyond the individual). In her study, Comfort (2016) showed that men’s jail stays—particularly their repeated cycling in and out of jail—were highly disruptive for family and intimate partners, who expended tremendous effort to help them stabilize their lives, only for the same issues that led to earlier arrests to reemerge and result in additional jail time shortly after release. Indeed, family members often help formerly incarcerated male relatives across multiple dimensions, offering instrumental support, such as a place to stay, and emotional support through encouragement and belief in their capacity to change (Martinez & Christian, 2009). For children, a parent’s return from confinement and family life may produce negative consequences, including behavioral problems and resentment, yet also hold promise for strengthening family dynamics over time (Muentner & Charles, 2023; see also McKay & Tadros, 2023, for impacts of parental incarceration over the life course).

The extensive demands of reentry on individuals, families, and communities are intensified by the failings of reentry policy and practice. In the United States, reentry as policy process is marked by burdensome fines and fees, legal cynicism, poor rapport with community supervision officers, inadequate services to meet the extent of overlapping reentry needs, and repeated cycling through prisons, jails, and supervision—all key barriers to meaningful reintegration (Cracknell, 2023; Halushka, 2020; Maier, 2021; Middlemass, 2017; Visher & Travis, 2003; Western & Harding, 2022). Yet, reentry policies continue to emphasize individual responsibility and behavior change rather than systemic reform or abolition (Bounoua et al., 2024; Couloute & Talley, 2024; Middlemass, 2017). Findings from extant research and policy analysis underscore the need for expanded conceptualizations of reentry processes, which in turn inform policy and practice.

However, studies often compartmentalize reentry experiences on various dimensions, including facility type (jail or prison), length of reentry period, or supervision status, which can limit an appreciation of heterogeneous reentry experiences (see, e.g., Turney & Conner’s, 2019 review of jail incarceration—“common and consequential” [p. 284] yet neglected in research and policy discussions). Research that examines a single reentry domain, such as housing, employment, or family, without holistically considering how reentry shapes the life course, misses opportunities to link policy-oriented work with theoretically rich and critical perspectives (Hallett, 2012; Link & Hamilton, 2017; Mears et al., 2013; Smiley, 2023). Fortunately, growing research has studied reentry with an integrated lens. Bakken and Visher (2018) observed that mental health problems connect to other reentry needs, like employment, housing, substance use, and family support, and that women with mental health problems face more difficulties than men during prison reentry. Their research also highlights the relevance of social factors, including family support, family conflict, and peer influences. Examining connections between substance use and recidivism, Link and Hamilton (2017) found that receiving instrumental and emotional support and social services were critical for successful reentry. Harding and colleagues (2016) conducted a narrative analysis revealing how intersections between individual narratives, the institutional structure in which the narrative unfolds, structural constraints, and relational networks all inform the desistance process. Narrative research offers significant insights for life course perspectives on reentry and reintegration, which we explore further in the next section.

Life Course Theory in the Context of Reentry, Reintegration, and Desistance

Life course criminology examines how key life milestones and transitions intersect with pathways into and out of crime, while embedding offending in individual and social contexts. Laub and Sampson’s 2003 seminal work followed a cohort of men from boyhood to age 70, analyzing trajectories and turning points (e.g., education, marriage, military service, parenthood) that propel people toward or away from crime throughout the life course. Scholars have applied life course theory to reentry in varied contexts, including how familial rejection complicates LGBTQ + youths’ reintegration (Morgan, 2024), homeless shelter use in the immediate and longer-term aftermath of release from incarceration (Remster, 2019), and how (formerly) incarcerated men negotiate masculinity expectations with limited opportunities to fulfill traditional roles (Panuccio & Christian, 2019; Umamaheswar, 2020).

Age-graded theories of social control explain how people tend to age out of crime. Still, offending and contact with the criminal justice system can have prolonged impacts. Repeated system involvement increases the risk of reoffending, as cumulative disadvantage is evident across the criminal justice system (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019). Though criminal justice involvement is a key life marker and turning point with profound implications for future life outcomes (e.g., see Apel, 2016, regarding incarceration as a disruptor of residential partnerships), the specific effects and mechanisms behind these outcomes are underexplored (Hickert et al., 2021; Kurlychek et al., 2012). The emphasis on offending precursors has left gaps in life course applications, particularly in the aftermath of offending and involvement in criminalized careers (Western & Harding, 2022).

Life course criminology closely parallels narrative studies of desistance. Maruna’s (2001) influential study found that former offenders who “make good” frame their lives through a redemption script that includes accountability for past actions and generativity toward the future and giving back to others. Paternoster and Bushway (2009) proposed an identity theory of desistance, highlighting the internal cognitive shifts that support desistance processes. Giordano (2022) examined how these internal cognitive shifts intersect with structural factors, underscoring the relational aspects of reentry and the need to study “derailments” in the desistance process. Similarly, Jones (2018) introduced the concept of the “half and half” to describe how street-involved Black men move between offending and desistance as their life circumstances, internal motivations, and narratives shift.

Narrative frameworks also provide rich methodological approaches for exploring life histories through critical lenses, investigating the harms of the carceral system and resistance to those harms (Couloute, 2024; Presser & Sandberg, 2019; Smiley, 2023). Based on a longitudinal study of formerly incarcerated women in Sweden, Gålnander (2024) demonstrates the nonlinear pathways to desistance, particularly through periods of drug addiction, relapse, and recovery. Villman (2024) further enhances understanding of desistance in an international context, showing how narrative genres and paths of formerly incarcerated people in Finland reveal that desistance and persistence often unfold together, embedded in both agency and structure.

In summary, myriad scholarship has advanced understanding of the economic, political, and social consequences of incarceration and reentry for individuals in the United States and abroad (Gålnander, 2024; Middlemass, 2017; Miller, 2021; Visher & Travis, 2003). Any discrete reentry event following confinement is typically just one of many over the life course, leaving people caught in a perpetual status of “reentering.” The repeated nature of incarceration and reentry necessitates a deeper examination of life course perspectives that extend beyond analyzing offending to contextual processes and consequences across intersecting life domains.

Data and Methods

The current research draws from a broader qualitative study on the reentry experiences of 20 formerly incarcerated men, conducted between February 2016 and July 2017. Using a strengths-based framework, the study examined both the challenges of reentry and the aspects participants perceived as going well or giving them hope. Strengths-based approaches center participants’ lived experiences, garnering insights into how they navigate difficult life circumstances while recognizing the structural inequalities that shape their choices (Maruna & LeBel, 2002; Payne & Brown, 2024; Williams et al., 2019). Open- and closed-ended interview questions were designed to elicit narratives about key life domains, including housing, community, family, employment, education, and incarceration history. The research protocol was approved by the Rutgers University, Newark Institutional Review Board, where the authors were all affiliated at the time of the study.

Participants were recruited through a reentry center in a Northeastern urban area of the United States that serves formerly incarcerated men by helping them secure documents for employment (e.g., social security cards, state identification), referring them to job opportunities, and hosting employers open to hiring this population. Most clients were Black, representing the demographic profile of those incarcerated in the area. Study participants were either seeking employment or searching for better opportunities if already employed. Many learned about the reentry center through peers, family, or community supervision officers. About 54% had visited the center more than once, praising its helpfulness in their transition, unlike other local services.

Staff members at the reentry center recruited participants who met the eligibility criteria of being male, at least 18 years old, and formerly incarcerated. Researchers also recruited directly in the waiting area. The principal investigator conducted half of the interviews, while the rest were completed by seven graduate students under the investigator’s supervision. The reentry center director allowed interviews to be conducted in his office, providing a familiar and private space for both the interviewer and interviewee. Participants received $40 as compensation for their time and transportation costs. Interviews lasted approximately 1.5 to 2 hours, were audio recorded with participants’ consent, and transcribed verbatim. In the interview transcript excerpts, participants were assigned pseudonyms, and edits were made to remove verbal fillers such as “um” and “like.”

Our research questions required rich descriptions and analysis of life history data, aligning with studies by Arditti and Parkman (2011) and Umamaheswar (2020) on formerly incarcerated men’s developmental pathways. Our analysis involved open, axial, and selective coding of text to identify, refine, and connect themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Specifically, all authors performed line-by-line, open coding of interview transcripts from the 20 participants to identify key themes related to reentry domains such as employment, family relationships, housing, and prior carceral contact, including stays in prisons, jails, and halfway houses, and community supervision. Two authors then conducted a comparative analysis of the participants’ reported successes and challenges across the domains to explore contextual differences and similarities in their reentry experiences. Table 1 outlines details of participants’ demographics and most recent incarceration.

Table 1 Participant characteristics (N = 20)
Full size table

Classifications of Participant Reentry Experiences

To contextualize participants’ cycles of post-carceral reentry experiences, we assessed their self-reported circumstances before, during, and after incarceration across several life domains that thematically emerged in the interviews: education, employment, housing, interpersonal relationships, community supervision status, and mental and physical health (Visher & Travis, 2003). A positive outcome in a domain signified some success within the dynamic reentry process. For example, having stable employment and legitimate income marked success in employment (Fader, 2013; Lockwood et al., 2015), while success in housing involved maintaining a secure and comfortable place to live. Participants reporting challenges in these areas, like difficulty finding work, were considered to have a “need” in that particular domain.

Participants’ reported success and needs across domains at the time of the interview were grouped into two typologies—high success/low needs and low success/high needs—to capture the multifaceted and complex nature of reentry among formerly incarcerated men. The high success/low needs group reflected relative stability, positive engagement, and social integration across multiple domains, suggesting a successful transition post-incarceration and possible lower likelihood of recidivism (Visher & Travis, 2011; Wallace et al., 2020). Conversely, the low success/high needs group represented instability and significant social service needs in key areas, such as unemployment or limited supportive networks, indicating greater reintegration difficulties and a higher potential for recidivism (Bounoua et al., 2024; Kang & Kruttschnit, 2022; Silver et al., 2021). After identifying the typologies that aligned with all 20 participants, we categorized each participant into one of the two groups based on their level of success or challenge across the domains. In total, nine of the twenty participants were assigned to the high success/low needs group, and the remaining eleven to the low success/high needs group. Coding of the participants’ narratives focused on identifying their successes, challenges, and shifts during the reentry process.

Findings

After analyzing formerly incarcerated men’s narratives about their reentry experiences, we identified three themes that provide critical insights into the reentry process. These themes highlight that reentry (1) is an ongoing process rather than a singular event, (2) has cumulative impacts across multiple life domains, and (3) can involve gradual shifts in outlook leading toward desistance. While these themes are presented separately for clarity, as noted by prior scholars (e.g., Andersen et al., 2020), conceptualizations of the reentry process among the formerly incarcerated often overlap and interact in complex ways. Moreover, our participants’ accounts show that cycles of reentry are profound events throughout the life course. Table 2 summarizes the reentry and reintegration experiences of all 20 participants by typology (high success/low needs vs. low success/high needs) across several life domains at the time of the interview. These classifications offer contextual grounding for interpreting participants’ narratives across the three themes.

Table 2 Reentry typological classification of participants across life domains (N = 20)
Full size table

Reentry is an Ongoing Process, not a Singular Event

The men’s narratives in this study reveal that reentry—whether from jail, prison, or a halfway house—is far from a singular, isolated event. None of the participants were experiencing reentry for the first time at the time of their interviews. While some had more extensive incarceration histories than others, all had been incarcerated at least once before. For these men, reentry was an ongoing process embedded in their life courses. Some even identified their repeated contact with the criminal justice system as a defining feature of their life trajectories. Consider Mario, a 41-year-old Hispanic man classified as low success/high needs who was interviewed approximately a month after his prison release. Having hustled and sold drugs since his teenage years, Mario’s life was marked by frequent arrests and multiple stints in jail and prison, including his most recent incarceration of five and a half years. Reflecting on his repeated incarcerations and reentries, Mario acknowledged the cycle he found himself in and expressed a desire to break it:

You get older, you get more knowledge of this, like, “Damn, I keep coming back. This is revolving doors. This is my life”…And I know what brings me back. It’s the fast life. Fast money, fast life. So, I gotta change that.

Several participants reported brief intervals between their release and subsequent reincarceration, reinforcing the idea that reentry often functions as a cycle of imprisonment and release rather than a final stage in individuals’ lives. Jason, a 36-year-old Black man in the high success/low needs group, exemplified this pattern. Although fourteen years had passed since his last release from prison, he recalled that in his earlier years of criminal justice system involvement, hustling and drug selling to survive often led to quick returns to incarceration: “I went back into [hustling] probably the second day [after release]…I was actually on parole at the time. I was only home for 58 days before I got rearrested for drugs.” Lewis, a 35-year-old Black man also in the high success/low needs group, had been out of prison for four years at the time of the interview. However, he too had experienced a similar cycle earlier in his life. Despite efforts to reintegrate, Lewis was reincarcerated for a new offense within a year of a previous release eight years ago:

I did three years in [redacted northeastern state]…that was from 2006 to the end of 2008…I came home in 2008…I was home for 41 days, and that’s when I caught another case…I stayed home for a year after that, and that’s when I got locked up in [a different northeastern state].

Beyond viewing reentry as a recurring process throughout their lives, some men emphasized its cumulative nature, shaped by repeated incarcerations and releases over time. This perspective is illustrated by Lincoln, a 45-year-old White Hispanic man classified as low success/high needs. At the time of the interview, conducted two weeks after his release, his most recent incarceration had lasted only two months—a seemingly short stay that masked decades of interactions with the criminal justice system. When asked about his incarceration history, Lincoln did not confine his response to the most recent instance—a parole violation for new offenses—but described incarceration and reentry as part of an interconnected set of experiences:

Interviewer: How long were you incarcerated?

Lincoln: Altogether? 23 years.

Interviewer: Was that on this last bid?

Lincoln: No… just for 2 months. They brought me from [redacted midwestern state], they extradited me, and they let me right out on parole.

Interviewer: Ok. How long were you in before that?

Lincoln: I was out for 2 years, but before that, I was in for 4…3 years and then… all my life 23-something years…I’ve never been out for more than a year or two.

Reuben, a 31-year-old Black man in the low success/high needs group, shared a comparable history of near-continuous system involvement, in which he was incarcerated for several months at a time throughout his adolescence and young adulthood: “Between 13 to 21, I haven’t spent a whole year out in the street because I’ve always [been] in and out of jail.” Lincoln and Reuben’s accounts portray lives deeply entangled with the criminal justice system, punctuated by intermittent episodes of freedom. For both men and most other participants, reentry was not a linear process but a recurring pattern woven into their lives.

Mike, a 36-year-old Black man with 12 years of incarceration spread across two non-consecutive prison stints, described his own cumulative reentry experience. His reflection suggests that reentry is not defined solely by release from prison but is often interspersed with short-term jail stays that complicate the process. When asked about jail time between his prison stints, Mike confirmed: “Yeah, I had a lot of those…[went] in, bailed out, back and forth. It was a couple…you keep bailing out…it piles up, and then eventually they throw away the key.” Despite remaining out of prison for four years at the time of the interview—placing him in the high success/low needs group—Mike’s past interactions with the system had, at one point, fostered a sense of resignation. This is evident in his account of being sent to a halfway house for a technical parole violation stemming from unemployment a year after release:

Interviewer: Okay, and then you came out on parole. You said you were out a year…After your violation, it was 90 days. But the P.O. sent you back because you weren’t working…What did you think when that happened like that?

Mike: I didn’t really care.

Interviewer: ‘Cause 90 days was nothing?

Mike: It’s not even a lot because I did time before. So, it didn’t even matter. It was like, “Alright.” Cause what choice do I have?…and they didn’t send me back, back. They sent me to a halfway [redacted program name] program…So, I didn’t really care; I just wanted to get them off my back because I been on papers forever.

Years of cycling through incarceration, community supervision, and release appeared to diminish the significance of reentry in Mike’s life, as he expressed little concern about returning to an institutionalized setting after a year in the community. Yet, even as he accepted the return to a halfway house as a routine part of his life, he also understood that another period of reentry, with relative freedom from strict supervision, would follow. Hence, Mike’s narrative hints at a broader paradox among those with extensive system contact: while repeated cycles of incarceration and reentry can routinize the process for these individuals, these cycles may also instill hope of eventual reintegration and separation from the criminal justice system.

Fred, a 22-year-old Black man in the low success/high needs group, was reincarcerated only 85 days after his prison release for a parole violation related to a failed drug test. Yet, he exhibited a mix of realism and optimism about his reentry journey. Despite the setbacks of past cycles, he voiced hope that his most recent return home would be his last transition out of the system:

You sit in jail for 6 months; you go home again. From parole, you get a year hit. I got my board action, and they said I was going to go home February 6…I was going to see my mom, so I was excited…I just knew this time had to be [the] last time.

Fred’s narrative shows how, even amid persistent cycles of incarceration and reentry, formerly incarcerated individuals often aspire for lasting reintegration into their communities.

Across both typological groups, our sample of formerly incarcerated men described reentry as a recurring cycle of incarceration and community supervision, punctuated by brief, uncertain periods of freedom during which they sought to rebuild their lives. This pattern left them in a persistent state of transition. Such nonlinear paths challenge framings that treat reentry as a discrete phase, aligning instead with a life course perspective that sees reentry as recursive and unfolding over an indeterminate time. These cyclical reentry experiences were both shaped by and contributed to ongoing reintegration challenges, such as unemployment, housing instability, and difficulties meeting parole conditions. The intersection between recurring reentry and reintegration challenges across and between key life domains provides a natural segue into the next theme.

Reentry has Cumulative Impacts across Multiple Life Domains

As the men shared their experiences of reintegrating into the community after incarceration, it became clear that reentry was deeply intertwined with various key life domains, including employment, housing, access to social services, and relationships with family and community. As shown in Table 2, participants varied in the stability they achieved across these domains following their most recent release. Importantly, these challenges and successes were rarely experienced in isolation. More often, they overlapped and compounded, shaping the men’s broader reintegration trajectories in cumulative ways. Lincoln’s story illustrates this dynamic. Before his extradition and reincarceration, he had rebuilt his life in another state with stable housing, a car, a job, and a supportive faith community, which would have placed him in the high success/low needs group. However, his reincarceration disrupted that progress, added to his already extensive criminal record, and forced him to restart the reentry process. Lacking resources and formal support upon his prison release, Lincoln felt pressure to return to illegal activities: “I get out, now I am homeless, no car, no job, so they set me up to go back to selling drugs and pimping prostitutes, and that’s what the government wants! More recidivism.” He further stressed how systemic exclusion constrained his options:

I don’t qualify for shelters because I have drug trafficking cases… I can’t get a housing voucher, I can’t get a clothing voucher, I can’t get a bus pass, I can’t get insurance. Nothing, except food stamps… And that’s how they want me to go back to selling drugs.

Lincoln’s experience underscores how stability across multiple life domains, such as housing, employment, transportation, and social support, is critical for sustained reintegration. Achieving that stability can take years, yet a single episode of reincarceration can swiftly unravel those gains, reinitiating the cycle of reentry and recidivism.

Eddie, a 29-year-old Black man also in the low success/high needs group, similarly recognized how interconnected life domains shaped his reintegration struggles. In particular, he described how housing instability and unemployment were linked in ways that made the early period after his prison release difficult: “I was…going back and forth through homelessness…because of…not being able to keep a steady job…my inconsistency of keeping a steady job pushed me back and forth through the walk-in shelters, and I slept in abandoned buildings.” At the time of the interview, it had been seven years since his release, and Eddie remained unemployed and homeless, staying in a shelter. He was also estranged from his family and coping with mental health issues. Eddie desired employment to improve his situation but cited his criminal record and lack of a driver’s license, which limited his access to jobs requiring identification and/or transportation, as significant barriers: “Right now, the job search has been the hardest for me because the jobs that I would feel comfortable in, my felony knocks me out of that spot every time…and if it’s not that, it’s I don’t have a license.” Having faced the challenge of searching for work after release from incarceration at least three times, Eddie was left frustrated and conflicted between returning to illegal activity to earn money and staying out of prison:

It’s the kinda walk-arounds they [employers] was doin’ wit’ me, and it made you not wanna do it [navigate the job application process]…Now here goes my brain clickin’: “Somebody’s about to get robbed.” “Don’t do that. You don’t wanna end back up in jail.” “Just one. All I need is one nice, wealthy family…goin’ to the ATM”…But…I couldn’t do it…Imma be out [of jail]. Just gonna go to another job, that’s all…fill me out another application.

Taken together, Lincoln and Eddie’s accounts reveal how repeated cycles of incarceration and release produce compounded stresses across life domains. Because reentry is an ongoing process shaped by both past and recent involvement in the criminal justice system, it can have multiplicative effects on reintegration success. Each reengagement with the system can destabilize efforts to secure housing, employment, and supportive relationships, among other factors needed to turn one’s life around. It also adds another mark to one’s criminal record, reinforcing systemic exclusion from conventional institutions. Navigating these overlapping barriers can leave formerly incarcerated men tempted to return to illegal activity as a means of survival despite their desire to desist. For some, this temptation becomes reality as it did for Lewis, who admitted to returning to crime after being unable to find a job upon his initial release from prison: “[I] had a few leads that didn’t go nowhere, so I started selling marijuana while I’m on parole. I was doing that to help make ends meet…I really didn’t want to, but that’s the way it was going.” These participants’ narratives illustrate how the cumulative weight of system involvement, combined with limited success across critical life domains, may elevate the risk of recidivism.

While men in the high success/low needs group also faced reentry and reintegration challenges, their narratives reflected greater resilience and a determination to remain on a law-abiding path. Unlike the low success/high needs group, they generally did not express current urges to revert to crime; instead, they described proactive strategies to move forward. Mike, for instance, was a stay-at-home father while his wife worked outside the home. Although he valued his role in raising his four children, he was eager to contribute financially, especially after losing his job and welcoming a newborn in the same month. Drawing on lessons from prior experiences, Mike was committed to avoiding the cycle of incarceration and reentry, emphasizing his resolve not to let setbacks lead him down the same path again:

…as far as me finding work…it’s hard…I lost my job in November [and] had my son [in] November…but I manage to stand tall and move forward, not backward…I’m getting bumps and bruises on the way, but I’m going forward. I’m not getting bumps and bruises going backward. That’s what led me into prison.

Matthew, a 55-year-old Black man newly released from prison, was also eager to find work. Yet he faced structural barriers, including transportation challenges that prevented him from accessing job opportunities in wealthier areas outside his more disadvantaged community. He explained: “If somebody is hiring, it’s way out…No buses run through [redacted wealthy city]. I don’t have any transportation. I don’t have a car or anything, so it’s hard for me to get to places…. I use public transportation.” Even with these barriers, Matthew remained determined, relying on local contacts to find work:

Interviewer: …Who do you go to? What do you ask them?

Matthew: Friends of mine…People that I know on the street: “Ya job hiring right now?” “No, they not hiring. Now, when they start hiring, I’ll let you know.” Things like that…It’s really hard tryna find work. That’s why I come here [reentry center] every day, so I could get plugged in some kind of way.

Along with suggesting how their recurrent entries and exits from incarceration created barriers to material stability, such as employment, housing, transportation, and access to support services, participants also considered the cumulative toll these cycles had on their interpersonal relationships, especially with family. Aligning with prior research that emphasizes incarceration and reentry as experiences felt both by justice-involved individuals and their families (for a review, see Wakefield, 2022), many participants described how their family ties had been transformed by their cyclical system involvement. Fred, for instance, described having a close relationship with his mother, who provided substantial support during his incarceration and reentry, including giving him $200 per month while he was incarcerated and allowing him to live with her each time he returned home. While Fred was proud of his mother’s consistent support, he also recognized her growing frustration with his habitual imprisonment:

Interviewer: So, she’s always welcomed you back? When you go away?

Fred: Absolutely. That’s my mom.

Interviewer: Do you think everyone has that kind of situation?

Fred: Nah, not everybody got that…but she tell me, though, that if I do the same thing over again, she gonna cut ties with me.

Eighty percent of the participants were fathers, and most recounted how their recurrent incarcerations and releases affected their relationships with their children. Donald, a 26-year-old Black man, is the father of three young children and, at the time of the interview, lived with them and his long-term girlfriend in an apartment he had maintained for four years—factors that contributed to his placement in the high success/low needs group. Although he had never been incarcerated in a state prison, he had spent nearly three years in and out of jail during his young adulthood. These frequent jail stays constrained his ability to parent his children, making him worry about the impact of his absences on their well-being and the lessons they might learn. When asked what was going well since his most recent release one month prior, he replied:

My kids’ growth…seeing them get smart…The time that I have to spend with them and our little family…You sit with them and do stuff with them, and they learn. If you ain’t there to do that, they learn something else.”

Furthermore, he expressed a newfound appreciation for being able to spend consistent time with his children post-release, which had previously been disrupted by being in and out of jail:

Interviewer: Why do you have the time now?

Donald: I think I always kind of had the time…the times you get locked up, that’s when you stress it the most. You’re kind of like, damn, I’m always used to doing this…I always had the time for them, it’s just there be little pause in between the times.

Overall, the participants’ accounts underscore that multiple cycles of incarceration and reentry often have cumulative effects on both material and relational aspects of reintegration. Sometimes, these recurrent experiences create systemic barriers for formerly incarcerated individuals that entice persistence in crime. In other cases, they motivate efforts to overcome obstacles and pursue reintegration through lawful means and renewed interpersonal connections.

Reentry can Involve Gradual Shifts in Outlook Leading toward Desistance

Although the men in this study had frequent contact with the criminal justice system and periods of persistent offending, their narratives also revealed moments of deep reflection within cycles of recidivism, reincarceration, and reentry. These experiences often prompted the men to question and challenge their continued involvement with the criminal justice system and reflect on how their actions impacted their loved ones. The reentry process—or even the anticipation of returning to their communities while still incarcerated—often served as a catalyst for growth. While cross-sectional qualitative interviews do not allow us to determine whether participants desisted from crime, some described experiencing shifts triggered by external factors that could be interpreted as turning points (Laub & Sampson, 2003). However, given participants’ repeated incarcerations and ongoing reentry, the idea of discrete turning points that transformed their lives may be less fitting. Instead, their narratives suggest that the cumulative effects of carceral cycling inspired them to envision changes in their lives leading toward desistance. Jones (2018) refers to these as “awakening moments”—brief realizations shaped by contextual factors that gradually contribute to a broader process of change among criminally involved individuals (p. 32).

For some participants, these moments of clarity came during incarceration. Eric, a 22-year-old Black man from the high success/low needs group, had a very supportive family and romantic partner. Since his release three months earlier from state prison, his loved ones had offered him a place to stay, provided transportation, and helped him reconnect with his daughter. During a prior stint in county jail, they stayed connected through phone calls, letters, and visits. However, Eric indicated that his most recent incarceration, his first in state prison, led to a personal behavioral and attitudinal change. Because of the greater travel distance, Eric’s family did not visit him while he was in prison, and he discouraged them from doing so to spare them the expense. The isolation from his loved ones weighed heavily on him, but also motivated him to follow institutional rules and earn early release after serving two years of a two-to-five-year sentence:

When I was upstate, I stayed out the way there and did everything I was supposed to and that was asked of me. I haven’t gotten in trouble once…I never got written up. I just learned how to stay out the way and just be around people who just wanna go home, who wanna do right, and tryna get back on the street and be positive, do positive things. Bein’ up there, you miss your family, your friends, you miss freedom period. I look at it [freedom] differently. It’s my life.

While incarcerated, Eric earned his high school diploma and completed several prison programs, including vocational training. Since his release, he has tried to avoid situations that could lead to trouble and focus on raising his daughter: “I just been in the house, trying not to let everybody know I came home, and…not goin’ in the streets or nothin’. I just been home, me and my daughter.” Reflecting on his progress, he described this shift as a personal transformation: “I think I changed by my actions. I changed by the way I think.” Another participant, Fred, reflected on how his repeated incarcerations had affected his family, particularly his mother, who had supported him throughout his cycles of recidivism and reentry. His motivation to avoid imprisonment stemmed from wanting to spare her further burden and disappointment:

It’s a hard feeling when you go down the wrong roads, and you got your family and children just here waiting on you for your stupidity…When I sit down and really think about it: “If they gave me life or 30 years, what I’m gonna do? What my mom gonna do? Take care of me for 30 years while I’m locked up?” So, I take heed to it, listen to it. I don’t wanna go back to jail…I’m in the process of doing bigger and better things, so I won’t go down that road…trying to do things that ain’t gonna have me go to jail. So, my mom won’t have to sit back and say, “Is he gonna come home and do the same thing, or is he coming home?”

Narratives also pointed to specific life course factors that led the men to reevaluate their involvement in crime and incarceration. These factors seemed to prompt shifts in their perspectives and a growing commitment to building a stable life in the community. For instance, like many of the men, Jason had a rough background. He grew up in poverty, his father left due to a heroin addiction, and his community was rife with drugs and crime. As a result, Jason turned to the streets at a young age, relying on illegal activities to survive. Yet, by the time of the interview, Jason had been out of incarceration the longest and achieved the most reintegration success among the participants. He credited life changes like marriage, fatherhood, and aging for shifting his outlook:

…after we [he and his wife] got older, had our first kid together….[Before] I was in the streets all the time, not coming home all night. That’s not like that anymore. I can’t sometimes believe it myself, how I turned up, how [it] all changed. I just got a different perspective on life now…I am more relaxed, laid-back, chill. Don’t want to do too much, like an old man.

In contrast, among those with the highest numbers of lifetime incarcerations, it was the experience of repeated interactions with the system that contributed to a sense of growth and reflection. Dante, a 43-year-old Black man considered low success/high needs, acknowledged that although he continued to struggle with unemployment and an active drinking problem, he had not returned to incarceration since his release a year-and-a-half earlier: “Nah, I used to go in and out of jail. I’m not doing that no more. I’m too old for that.” For Mario, being incarcerated and witnessing others serve long sentences compelled him to reevaluate his life and take his freedom more seriously:

Mario: This is what I been doing all my life…I been going back to jail—in and out…I’m tired of that lifestyle….

Interviewer: And what do you think sparked that change in you?

Mario: Freedom. When you in there, that’s all you thinking about freedom. And I was looking at other people. They got life. You got dudes in there with 30 to 50-life. I looked at that like, “Look, I got a chance to go out there back to society. And I’m here bullshitting with these guys. I’m out of here”…that’s what made me be more consistent of leaving that spot and changing my life around.

Interviewer: Okay. And what do you think made this time different from the other bids?

Mario: I don’t know. More wiser. I’m wiser on this whole situation….

Finally, participants, especially those in the high success/low needs group, expressed wanting to improve their lives through legal rather than illegal means, despite challenging circumstances. At the time of the interview, Malcolm, a 45-year-old Black man, had recently been released to home confinement after a stay in a halfway house. This shift in community supervision reflected his post-release progress: within two months, he had secured stable housing with family, employment, and most of his personal documents. He was also engaged to be married and had strong family support. Despite these markers of stability, Malcolm still faced reentry challenges common among participants, including maintaining sobriety after a long-time heroin addiction and caring for dependents. Nonetheless, he was determined to disengage from street activity, describing a change in mindset and a desire to restore his life and reputation:

The positive change was me. I just changed my thinking. I don’t want to do this no more…I wanna be someone people can say, “Well, when he came home, he did what he needed to do.” I don’t want people to see me back on the corner, back in the hallway selling drugs, or with a gun in my hand doing crazy things. I lived a crazy life, so now I’m in a position where I have the opportunity to recreate myself, and that’s just what I’m going to try to do. I wanna be able to live my life now. I done gave incarceration over 25 years, so I just want to move on.

For Malcolm, breaking the sequence of crime and incarceration derived from a decision to pursue legal employment. Even amid financial hardship, he proclaimed his intent to do things differently:

I told myself: “I’m getting me a job, and I’m not going back. I don’t care how broke I am.”…The money out there is not good enough for me risking my freedom no more. I did it already. I paid my debt to society.

Ultimately, the men’s narratives suggest that cycles of incarceration and reentry may be more dynamic than they initially appear. Within these cycles, the men experienced pivotal moments that led them to gradually rethink their behaviors and choices. These moments were shaped by factors like the harsh realities of incarceration, maturation, family responsibilities, and a longing for stability and self-improvement. While their stories do not provide conclusive evidence of long-term desistance, they suggest the men were capable of agentic thinking to build lives outside of prison rather than remain trapped in the system.

Discussion

This study provided deeper insight into the reentry process by examining how repeated contact with the carceral system shapes the lives of formerly incarcerated men across multiple life domains and their movement toward desistance. Through narrative analysis, our three main findings show that reentry is a complex process shaped by recurrent system interactions, structural challenges, and personal development over time. These results contribute to the literature on life course, reentry, and desistance by emphasizing the need for enhanced support systems that address the complexities inherent in the lives of returning citizens.

First, our findings align with previous research indicating that reentry is not a one-time event but a repetitive process with cumulative effects (Knight, 2024; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Silver et al., 2021; Western & Harding, 2022). The men’s narratives revealed that reentry is a dynamic, recurring social process marked by cycles of incarceration and community supervision. All of the men experienced multiple incarcerations and releases throughout their lives, including short- and long-term carceral stays. Their time in jail, prison, or under community supervision was never an isolated event, but instead a regular and normalized part of their lives. These cycles highlight the importance of understanding reentry as part of a larger, long-term social process rather than a single point of transition.

Second, the narratives suggested that reentry, as a cyclical social process, is compounded by reintegration challenges—such as employment, housing, transportation, and family relationships—that often trap returning citizens in a continuous state of transition. This finding is consistent with prior research documenting the many difficulties people encounter after carceral release (Cracknell, 2023; Hassan et al., 2022; Miller, 2021). The structural and individual challenges people face throughout their lives, such as poverty and trauma, do not disappear when incarceration occurs; instead, they are often intensified. Multiple cycles of reentry following incarceration can exacerbate those challenges, increasing instability and reliance on social support systems. The men in our study described experiencing instances of success, such as securing employment, that propelled them forward after release, followed by setbacks that derailed their progress and increased their risk of recidivism. Additionally, it is often the case that individuals enter and exit incarceration or supervision in the same life domains they struggle with after release. Over time, these compounded disadvantages accumulate, heightening the risk of reoffending and reentering the system.

Lastly, our findings showed that throughout cycles of incarceration, reentry, and recidivism, formerly incarcerated men may experience reflective moments that change their perspectives and steer them toward desistance. For our participants, recurring carceral experiences deepened their awareness and shaped how they viewed their lives, prompting gradual shifts in outlook. Echoing Halsey and Harris’ (2011) observation that desistance pathways often begin during incarceration as young men reflect on their futures, we found that such shifts, or moments of clarity, often occurred during periods of confinement and were reinforced by life circumstances upon return to the community. These realizations often signaled a growing sense of agency, leading participants to reassess their lives and pursue more stable, fulfilling paths beyond the criminal justice system.

Taken together, the findings underscore that reentry is a multidimensional process shaped by intersecting structural and individual contexts. They suggest implications for reentry policies and practices that go beyond singular interventions and instead focus on comprehensive, coordinated support across multiple domains, including employment, housing, family, and healthcare (Bakken & Visher, 2018; Harding et al., 2016; Visher & Travis, 2003). Disrupting cycles of recidivism requires addressing systemic barriers and strengthening reentry programs that promote long-term integration of returning citizens (Couloute, 2024; Smiley, 2023; Western & Harding, 2022). Our findings align with Western and Harding’s (2022) assertion that reentry research and policy must take greater account of the process of criminalization, meaning that systemic-level responses to offending exacerbate the challenges of reintegration. Further, our participants’ cycles of carceral contact suggest that the overlapping challenges faced by returning citizens must be addressed through policies that expand, rather than restrict, access to resources, and that service provision should be designed with the insights of justice-involved individuals and recognition of the demoralizing impacts of repeated contacts (Couloute, 2024; Miller, 2021). To achieve meaningful improvements in the lives of returning citizens, policies must account for the cumulative effects of reentry and reintegration, as well as the intersectional life experiences of those caught in the cycle (Bunn, 2019; Fader & Traylor, 2015).

Our research contributes to multiple, often compartmentalized literatures that converge at critical points to enhance an overall understanding of the reentry process. By drawing on frameworks that examine the pervasiveness of carceral contact among marginalized populations, the multidimensional nature of reentry across key life domains, and life course criminology perspectives on reentry and reintegration, we offer a more integrated understanding of the reentry process. We also demonstrate the importance of bridging theory and policy analysis in reentry research to situate reentry within life course perspectives, while decentering recidivism as the outcome of interest (Andersen et al., 2020; DeVeaux, 2022; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). Future research should build on this approach by examining how stability in one or more life domains—including those not fully explored in this study—affects the reentry and the quality of life for returning citizens. For example, researchers could conduct follow-up interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals to assess their evolving social capital, health, and wellness as indicators of successful reintegration across various domains. Future work could also enrich knowledge on desistance by examining whether and how opportunities to desist vary at different life stages (e.g., adolescence versus young adulthood). Finally, comparative global research could elucidate whether the cyclical nature of reentry observed in the United States persists across diverse societal and cultural contexts.

Although this study offers valuable insights into how repeated carceral contact shapes life course trajectories during reentry and reintegration, it is not without limitations. First, while rich in qualitative detail, our study focuses specifically on formerly incarcerated cisgender men in a single urban area in the Northeastern United States. This scope limits the generalizability of our findings and excludes the diverse reentry experiences of cisgender women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals. Future research should examine how cycles of incarceration and reentry affect these populations and examine the strategies they use to navigate them. Second, the interviews in our study were conducted retrospectively, at a single point in time, limiting our ability to assess how reentry experiences evolve across multiple life domains and cycles. The interviews were also conducted nearly a decade ago. While many patterns of carceral contact and structural barriers remain relevant, more recent policy shifts and social developments may influence reentry experiences in ways unaccounted for here. Longitudinal studies using more recent data could extend our work by illuminating the evolving and compounding effects of repeated incarceration on individuals, their families, and communities. Participants self-selected into the study by visiting the reentry center where recruitment occurred, raising concerns about selection bias. Those who sought services at the center may differ meaningfully from others who did not, potentially shaping the perspectives captured. Finally, because our data were collected in the United States, we cannot provide a fully comparative framework for our findings. One aspect of our results, the repeated cycling through carceral experiences, is likely particular to the United States, given the scale of mass incarceration, community supervision, recidivism, and reentry (Byrd, 2016; Middlemass, 2017; Miller, 2014; Western & Harding, 2022). However, extant research from other countries, such as Australia (Halsey & Harris, 2011), Canada (Balfour et al., 2019), Sweden (Gålnander, 2024), the Netherlands (Ramakers et al., 2024), and the United Kingdom (Cracknell, 2023), suggests that the challenges returning citizens face across multiple life domains and the desistance process are relevant in diverse contexts, regardless of differences in reentry policy or penal philosophy.

Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the growing body of research on reentry as a complex social and policy process. By examining in-depth narratives of formerly incarcerated men, we were able to better understand how they made sense of their experiences with incarceration, reentry, and reintegration throughout their lives, helping us clarify how reentry unfolds over the life course and across multiple domains. Our findings broaden understandings of reentry as a cyclical, nonlinear process shaped by repeated criminal justice contact, structural barriers, and interpersonal dynamics. Future research grounded in life course perspectives is needed to examine how cumulative experiences of reentry and reincarceration shape long-term reintegration and desistance. With deeper insight, reentry policies can better respond to the holistic and evolving needs of returning citizens to support their successful reintegration.