Home but not free: Rule‐breaking, withdrawal, and dignity in reentry

Abstract Research on reentry has documented how material hardship, network dynamics, and carceral governance impede reintegration after prison, but existing scholarship has left underdeveloped other instances in which adverse outcomes stem from the institution's socioemotional dynamics and people's practical and emotional responses to bureaucratic indignities. Drawing on more than 2 years of ethnographic fieldwork with people on parole in Philadelphia, this study analyzes three sources of adversity that occur because reentry institutions’ or actors’ practices are incompatible with the behaviors and needs of system‐involved people. I demonstrate how unrecognized vulnerability, discretion's benefits and drawbacks, and risk‐escalating rules contribute to adverse outcomes—withdrawal and rule‐breaking—that sometimes lead to reincarceration. In failing to account for aspects of human agency and dignity, such as the ability to provide for oneself and to advance personal and familial well‐being, parole guidelines often prompted withdrawal and subversion.