Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Likelihood of Marriage: The Effect of Incarceration

By Huebner, Beth M

Researchers have highlighted the importance of marriage when studying variation in deviance over the life course, but few studies have examined the effect that incarceration has on marriage or have considered variation by race and ethnicity. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), this study contrasts the effect of incarceration on the likelihood of marriage for White, Black, and Hispanic males. Incarceration reduced the chances of marriage for all men, but had a significantly stronger effect on the marital outcomes for Whites. Although Whites were most likely to be married overall, incarceration was associated with a 59 percent decline in the odds of marriage for Whites, and the odds of marriage decreased 30 percent for Blacks and 41 percent for Hispanics. The association was maintained even after controlling for time-varying life-course events and static individual-level factors. This research has important implications for the study of the incarceration and the consequences it can have for spouses, families, and communities.

Keywords racial differences; ethnic differences; marriage; incarceration

(ProQuest-CSA LLC: … denotes formulae omitted.)

Introduction

Marriage is one of the most salient predictors of desistance from crime and other problem behaviors in adulthood (Duncan, Wilkerson, & England, 2003; Farrington & West, 1995; Laub & Sampson, 2001, 2003; Ouimet & Le Blanc, 1996; Sampson a Laub, 1993; Uggen, Manza, a Behrens, 2003; Warr, 1998). Marriage has been found to increase informal social control (Sampson & Laub, 1993) and mitigate relationships with delinquent peers (Warr, 1998), and has generally been associated with “cleaning up one’s act” (Duncan et al., 2003). For example, Horney, Osgood, and Marshall (1995, p. 665) found that cohabitation with one’s wife doubles the odds of desistance from criminality, whereas leaving the marital home increases the likelihood of offending. Sampson and Laub (1993) also discovered that individuals with strong bonds to marriage were more likely to desist from crime, even after controlling for involvement in delinquent behavior during adolescence. In fact, attachment to a spouse had a more pronounced effect than did job stability (see also Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998).

To date, much of the research concerning marriage has focused on the effect of this life event on criminal offending. Little consideration has been given to the effect of incarceration on marriage. Researchers have argued that persistence and desistance can be explained within the same theoretical framework (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Laub & Sampson, 2003); therefore, it is equally important to consider the factors that inhibit the development of positive social relationships as it is to study indicators of criminality. Further, incarceration is a cumulative disadvantage in that it reduces the chances of marriage, consequently increasing the likelihood of subsequent criminality (Laub & Sampson, 2003). As such, a fundamental goal of this research is to further research on desistance by considering the relative effect of incarceration on marriage.

An equally important question is how the marital chances of minorities differ from that of Whites following release from prison. Race and ethnicity are critical elements in the study of prisoner re- entry. Minority males are more likely to be sentenced to prison than Whites and represent a majority of the parole and prison populations. In contrast, minority males are less likely to become married than their White counterparts. The disparity in marriage rates has increased over time, especially among Blacks. In 1960, 61 percent of all Black males over the age of 15 and 70 percent of White males were married (Popenoe a Dafoe Whitehead, 2003). The marriage rate for Black males declined to 44 percent in 2002, and 60 percent of White males were married during the same year. Less is known about long-term marriage trends for Hispanics.1 In 2002, half (50 percent) of all Hispanic males were married (US Census Bureau, 2002). The primary goal of the current research is to examine how the incarceration experiences of racial and ethnic minorities affect their outcomes in the marriage market.

This study utilizes a nationwide sample of men to examine the effect of incarceration on marriage and the variation in marital outcomes by race and ethnicity. The current work improves on previous research by including Hispanics in the analysis. Recent demographic changes highlight the importance of including persons of Hispanic ethnicity in the study of incarceration and marriage. The Hispanic population of the United States is growing at a rate of two percent each year, and by 2010, the Hispanic origin population is anticipated to be the second-largest racial-ethnic group next to non- Hispanic Whites (US Census Bureau, 1996). The use of longitudinal data also separates this work from previous research. Data for this study were obtained from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). The NLSY is a prospective survey of a cohort of American youth first interviewed in 1979. The use of longitudinal data facilitates the estimation of the effect that change in incarceration status has on the likelihood of marriage, while controlling for a host of individual-level factors associated with both incarceration and marriage. Thus, this research highlights the long-term implications of incarceration for males’ social relationships.

Incarceration, Marriage, and the Life Course

The life-course perspective is based on the assumption that people move through a series of social roles over their lifetime. Although many people follow relatively stable, sequential paths, trajectories of both deviance and conformity can be interrupted by social institutions and life events (Elder, 1985, 1995). It is this dynamic within-person change that has been the focus of life-course research. Life-course researchers argue that most of the variation in life outcomes comes from time-varying social contexts and events, although individual-level characteristics (e.g., IQ) and past life experiences (e.g., juvenile delinquency) can also alter life pathways (see Laub & Sampson, 2003).

The life-course perspective is particularly relevant to the study of incarceration and marriage. Researchers within this theoretical framework have understood events like incarceration and marriage as a class of general social events similar to employment and military participation that can affect life trajectories. Incarceration and marriage are not isolated events; rather, they are part of a larger life trajectory that is characterized by a number of life changes. In this light, the life-course perspective facilitates the examination of incarceration relative to other significant life events (e.g., military participation) and provides a broader context to the study of marriage.

Although extensive research has not been conducted on the effect of incarceration on marital outcomes, incarceration has been found to affect life chances in a number of ways. First, incarceration erodes human and economic capital that can diminish one’s desirability in the marriage market. Researchers have linked incarceration to reduced chances of employment among men (Holzer, 1996; Nagin & Waldfogel, 1995; Pager, 2003; Waldfogel, 1994) and lower earnings potential (Pagan & Freeman, 1999; Freeman, 1991; Grogger, 1995; Kling, 1999; Western & Beckett, 1999). The effect of incarceration on employment outcomes has been especially strong for Blacks (Western, Pettit, & Guetzkow, 2002). Incarceration also precludes one from participation in military service, limits the availability of federally funded housing, and can close doors to educational funding (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Petersilia, 2003).

Second, incarceration carries a strong stigma that can tarnish the respectability of a potential marital partner. Incarceration often elicits strong feelings of shame and anger for the family and associates of inmates (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). Relationships may be severed or damaged as a result. For many young men, the best escape from the stigma of imprisonment is a peer group and the streets. Men who are paroled often find greater prestige and validation from a peer group than they would with their family. Members of the peer group are most often single and see little value in finding a spouse (Nurse, 2000).

In addition to reducing the chances of finding a potential spouse, incarceration can also sever established relationships. For women, the stigma of incarceration is often internalized, causing them to withdraw from relationships that involve incarcerated males, even when children are present (Braman, 2002). Also, many men experience strained relationships with children and significant others while imprisoned (Hariston, 1998). Upon release, mothers are reluctant to marry the father of their child if he has been incarcerated (Edin, Nelson, & Paranal, 2001; Nurse, 2000, 2002).

Finally, the physical separation of the individual from the community often places undue financial and emotional stress on the family, further reducing the chances for marital sustainability (Braman, 2002; Ferraro, Johnson, Jorgensen, & Bolton, 1983; \Fishman, 1990; Goeke, 1980; Lowenstein, 1986; McDermott & King, 1992; Schafer, 1994). In a qualitative study of re-entry in England, McDermott and King (1992) found that family members changed their role structures when a parent was incarcerated. Upon return, parents and spouses were unclear of their place in the family. The physical absence of the parent was linked with high levels of psychological stress for the entire household, which was further multiplied after considering the loss of economic resources coming into the family.

Based on previous qualitative research, it is clear that incarceration is detrimental to marital and family relationships. Although very little empirical research has explored the direct effect of incarceration on marriage, the research that has been conducted confirms the conclusions drawn from prior work. Incarceration has been linked with a 10 percent decrease in the likelihood of marriage for men at the individual level (Huebner, 2005). At the community level, Sabol and Lynch (2003) found that increases in incarceration rates of Black men led to higher ratios of single parent families. Only one study has explored the effect of incarceration on individual-level marital outcomes by race. Using the Fragile Families Data, Western, Lopoo, and McLanahan (2004) examined marital outcomes for men with newborn children and found that incarceration reduced the chances of marriage by a minimum of 40 percent. Further, for Black and non-Hispanic White men, incarceration reduced the likelihood of marriage by nearly half. Incarceration had little effect on marital outcomes for Hispanic men.

Although extant research serves as a model for the current work, it has been limited by two factors. First, the scope of current research has been restricted. For example, the sample considered by Western and colleagues (2004) was limited to males who were parents to a newborn child and living in a large city. In addition, most previous research lacked controls for factors that are associated with incarceration and marital outcomes (Huebner, 2005; Western, Lopoo, & McLanahan, 2004). Unlike other studies performed, this study used a nationally representative sample of males to assess the effect of incarceration on marriage for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, while controlling for time-variant measures (e.g., military participation) and static controls (e.g., value orientation) that have not been included in past research.

Race, Ethnicity, and Marriage

Two central theories have been advanced to explain variation in marriage rates over time and across racial and ethnic groups. On one side, the normative perspective rests on the assumption that marriage is a central societal institution. Marriage is seen as an ideal for young Americans and is supported and encouraged by norms, values, and laws (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001). Even though social and gender roles have changed over time, most individuals strive to become married at some point in their life (Oppenheimer, Blossfeld, & Wackerow, 1995).

In contrast, exchange theorists have proposed a rational choice model of marriage (Becker, 1973, 1974). Exchange theories of marriage are based on the assumption that individuals seek out mates who have the potential to maximize well-being (Becker, 1974, p. S11). Individuals strive to find a partner that will increase the productivity of the individual, more so than could be achieved had they remained single. Existing research has identified three socioeconomic categories that influence one’s chances in the marriage market: family background, life-course experiences, and structural characteristics of the current marriage market (Fu & Goldman, 1996). Individuals with positive individual traits (e.g., high cognitive abilities), individual capital (e.g., employment, education), and stable family structures (e.g., intact family) will pose less of a risk to a potential mate and will be more likely to become married.

Normative and rational choice theories also explain differences in marriage by race and ethnicity. Both theoretical frameworks concur that Black men will be the least likely to become married and that Hispanics and Whites will experience similar marital opportunities. However, the causal mechanisms that lead to variation in marital rates differ. From a normative perspective, researchers have found that the necessity of marriage is less central to the worldview of Black males, especially among young men residing in urban areas (Anderson, 1989b; Bennett, Bloom, & Craig, 1989; Schoen & Klugel, 1988; South, 1993; Trent & South, 1992). Using the National Survey of Families and Households, South (1993) found that 77 percent of Black males between the ages of 19 and 25 indicated that they would like to become married someday, while 89 percent of White men and 93 percent of Hispanic men reported that they desired marriage. Researchers often attribute differences in normative beliefs and desires between Black and White males to strong influences of peer groups. For example, Anderson (1989a, 1989b) found that inner-city Black youth were reluctant to become married because they were concerned with the effect that marriage would have on their attachments and relationships with their peer group. Few men had friends that were married, and the norms of marriage were often in conflict with that of the peer group. Black men also did not perceive gains in their sex life and personal friendships as an outcome of marriage (see also South, 1993).

Although there appear to be some differences in the normative value placed on marriage by Blacks as compared to Whites and Hispanics, current research suggests that a portion of the disparity in marriage rates are attributable to the lack of resources that Black men bring to the marriage market. At the aggregate level, the number of employed men in a geographic area has been linked to delays in marriage for women and increases in the number of female- headed households (Bennett et al., 1989; Fossett & Kiecolt, 1993; Lichter, Anderson, & Hayward, 1995; Lichter, LeClere, & McLaughlin, 1991; Lichter, McLaughlin, Kephart, a Landry, 1992; Testa a Krogh, 1995; Wilson, 1987). Wilson’s (1987) “marriageable male” hypothesis is one of the most prominent exchange theories. Wilson contends that Black males have been disproportionately affected by declining employment prospects, especially in the manufacturing sector. As a result, it is difficult for Black women to find a suitable mate who is able to provide adequate economic support. Black women often have similar economic means as Black men; therefore, Black women have less to gain from marriage to Black men.

The empirical evidence on the marriageable male hypothesis has been mixed. Many researchers have linked aggregate rates of marriage to community economic conditions, but market factors appear to explain only a small amount of variation in marriage rates after controlling for individual-level factors (Lichter et al., 1992; South & Lloyd, 1992). For example, Lichter and colleagues (1992) found that marriage rates of Black women were roughly half of that of White women, even when exposed to similar marriage market conditions. Very little research has explored the relationship between the marriage market and marriage rates for Hispanics, but initial research suggests that marriage chances for Hispanics are not substantially influenced by the availability of marriageable partners (Oropesa, Lichter, a Anderson, 1994).

At the individual level, differences in educational attainment and economic opportunities have been linked to differential marital outcomes for men. A positive association between men’s improved economic opportunities, employment, and marriage has been confirmed at the individual level (Fossett a Kiecolt, 1993; Oppenheimer, 1988; Testa a Krogh, 1995). Employment is maintained as a significant predictor of marriage for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics, even after controlling differences in the marriage market (Oropesa et al., 1994). Education also increases the possibilities of employment for men and has been found to improve one’s chances of marriage (Thornton, Axinn, & Teachman, 1995).

Marital patterns among Hispanic males are more paradoxical because Hispanics marry at similar rates as Whites despite economic opportunities similar to Black men (Oropesa et al., 1994). Pronuptial norms have been identified as a central determinant of marital outcomes for Hispanics. For Hispanic men, a strong family and marriage is a central part of the concept of machismo, and women are socialized to believe that marriage and children are central life objectives (Blea, 1992). Unlike Black men and even more so than White men, marriage is viewed as an important element of the self for Hispanic males (South, 1993; Trent & South, 1992). The normative value of marriage has also been maintained across cultures. Researchers have confirmed the centrality of marriage and family in contemporary Mexican American (Blea, 1992; Williams, 1990) and Latin American cultures (Stavans, 1995). Pronuptial norms also appear to supersede economic and marriage market considerations, although this research is still in its infancy. In a study of pronuptial norms among White and Hispanic men, Oropesa (1996) found that Hispanic men reported significantly greater support for the ideal of marriage, even when controlling for socioeconomic background and the nature of the marriage market. There was also little variation about the mean for Hispanics suggesting that the normative ideal of marriage is generally shared among the population.

Data and Methodology

A subset of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 is used for the current study. The NLSY is a nationally representative sample of young men and women who were between the ages of 14 and 22 in 1978 (Center for Human Resource Research, 2001). A multi-stage stratified area probability s\ample of dwelling units in the United States was used to select eligible respondents. Data have been collected through in person interviews yearly from 1979 to 1994, and biannually from 1996 to 2000. The original sampling framework was designed to oversample civilian Hispanic, Black, and economically disadvantaged non-Black/ non-Hispanic youth living in the United States during 1979.2 Data from the 1983 to 2000 surveys were selected for analyses because all men were over the age of 18 in 1983, and 2000 represents the most recently available data.

The original sample included 6,403 men and 6,283 women interviewed in 1979. Women were excluded at the outset of the study for two reasons. First, only one percent of women reported being incarcerated during the study period. In addition, current research suggests that women may experience marriage differently than men (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001); therefore, the inclusion of women in the study sample may have confounded the incarceration effect. Due to changes in the study protocol, an additional 1,369 men were removed from the original group.3 In addition, 443 men were omitted from the analyses because they had died, were incarcerated at 11 or more time periods, or failed to participate in 10 or more interviews.4 Finally, 196 men who did not provide information on their race or ethnicity or identified themselves as “other” were deleted. The total sample for analyses consists of 4,395 men, of which 443 (10.1 percent) were incarcerated at some point during the study period. By race and ethnicity, the sample consists of 2,210 White, 1,289 Black, and 896 Hispanic males.5 Four percent of the White males had been incarcerated at least once from 1983-2000. Black and Hispanic males were incarcerated at levels of 20 percent and 11 percent, respectively. The incidence of incarceration was highest for Blacks. On average, Black males were incarcerated during 3.35 interview periods, whereas Hispanic males averaged 2.78 incarceration periods and White males 2.22.6

Measures

Dependent Variable

Marriage serves as the dependent measure in the analysis. As noted, marriage has been identified as an important turning point in the lives and criminal trajectories of young men. As such, it is important to consider the effect that incarceration has on this central social institution. Marriage is dichotomous (1 = married at time t; 0 = single, divorced or widowed at time t). A substantial proportion of the sample was married at some point during the study period. Nearly two-thirds (74 percent) of the sample reported being married. Whites were the most likely to be married, with 82 percent of White males entering into a marriage union. Two thirds (75 percent) of Hispanic men and 58 percent of Black males were married during the study period. These findings are consistent with recent population estimates. In 1996, 83 percent of White males, 63 percent of Black males, and 80 percent of Hispanic males between the ages of 35 and 39 reported being married at some point in their life (Kreider & Fields, 2002). Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the model are presented by race/ethnicity in Table 1, and a description of variables can be found in Appendix A.

As displayed in Table 1, time spent in marriage relationships was lower for Black males than for White and Hispanic members of the sample. Black males, on average, reported being married during 30 percent of the interview periods, while Whites indicated that they were married 53 percent of the time and Hispanics 49 percent. In contrast, incarceration was most prevalent among Black males. Black males were incarcerated for an average of 5 percent of the interview periods. Hispanic males were, on average, incarcerated for 2 percent and White males 1 percent of the interview points.

Independent Variables

Life-course events

Incarceration, employment, education, military service, and age are included in the models as dynamic indicators of life course events. Two dichotomous incar-. ceration variables were designed to capture the short- and long-term effects of imprisonment. First, the incarcerated measure was constructed to measure the simultaneous effect of incarceration on entrance into marriage. Individuals were coded 1 if they were incarcerated at time f and O if they had not been incarcerated at time t. Second, a binary previous incarceration measure was constructed to reflect the long-term effect of incarceration on the likelihood of marriage (1 = incarcerated at some point between 1983 and time f and O = not incarcerated at any point from 1983 and time t).7

As shown in Figure 1, incarceration further confounds the relationship between marriage, race, and ethnicity. Overall, half (49 percent) of men who had been incarcerated at any point during the study period became married, while 77 percent of individuals who did not experience incarceration entered into marriage. Across groups of race and ethnicity, individuals who have been incarcerated were less likely to become married. Hispanic and White males who did not experience incarceration were the most likely to be married. In 2000, 68 percent of non-incarcerated White men and 60 percent of Hispanics who had not been incarcerated were married. In contrast, only 29 percent of White and 20 percent of Hispanic males who had been incarcerated became married. Blacks were the least likely to be married. In 2000, 43 percent of Blacks who had not been incarcerated during the study period reported being married, whereas 15 percent of Blacks who had been incarcerated during the study period were married.

Education and employment status are also included in the model as time-variant controls. Consonant with economic exchange theory, it is hypothesized that men with full-time employment and higher levels of education would have more capital in the marriage market and would be more likely to attract a spouse (Becker, 1973; MacDonald & Rindfuss, 1981; Thornton et al., 1995). The employment measure is dichotomous with men who reported working fulltime (more than 1,900 h a year) equal to one, and men who did not work or worked only part time as the reference category. The education construct represents the number of years of education completed at time t.

Finally, a time-variant measure of military participation is included in the model. Military participation is entered into the current analyses as a dichotomy (1 = enlisted in the military at time t; 0 = not enlisted in service at time t). It is unclear from current research how military participation may affect marital chances. Some researchers have linked military participation with reduced chances of marriage (Goldscheider & Waite, 1986); whereas, recent research has tied military participation to improved chances of marriage among White (Sampson a Laub, 1996) and Black men (Testa a Krogh, 1995).

Demographic influences

A series of static, individual-level attributes are included in the models as controls. The measures were selected to represent family, social, and economic factors in adolescence and young adulthood, and are consistent with those used in research of this type (Lichter et al., 1992). Although many of these factors can vary over time (i.e., family structure, household poverty), data limitations precluded them from being included in the model as time- varying covariates.

Cognitive ability and youthful incarceration are included as demographic controls. Cognitive ability is measured using the respondent’s percentile score on the Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT). Each respondent was assigned a ranked percentile score based on their performance on the instrument. The youthful incarceration measure queries individuals if they had ever been sentenced to spend time in a corrections institution at any point prior to 1983 (1 = incarcerated prior to 1983; 0 = not incarcerated before 1983).8

Value orientation

Researchers have discovered a positive association between traditional family values and improved chances of marriage (Goldscheider & Waite, 1986; Lichter et al., 1992). As such, three variables including traditional family values, urban residence, and southern residence are included in the model to account for value orientation. The traditional values measure is opertationalized using a four-item factor score. Respondents were asked in 1979 and 1982 to indicate their level of agreement with two statements: (1) women are much happier if they stay home to take care of their children and (2) it is much better for everyone concerned if the man is the achiever outside the home, and the woman takes care of the home and family (eigenvalue 2.10; factor loadings >.69; α =.69).

Value orientation has also been linked with region of the country and population density of a community. Researchers have consistently found that individuals living in the South and in rural areas are more likely to be married and to enter into marriage at an earlier age (Waite & Spitze, 1981). In the current study, region of residence is included as a dichotomous measure (1 = individual lived in the South census region; 0 = lived outside the South census region). The measure of residence in an urban area is also dichotomous (1 = lived in urban area; 0 = lived in rural area).

Family history

Family history is an important correlate of marriage for two reasons. First, intact family structures and the resources they afford increase the desirability of a marital candidate. In addition, researchers have discovered that parents often convey their beliefs about marriage to their children. Individuals from single parent and divorced families often have less economic capital and are more likely to be cautious about marriage and to remain single (Amato, 1988; Booth & Edwards, 1989; Demo & Acock, 1988; Greenberg & Nay, 1982; Thornton, 1991).

Three indicators of family history are included in the models. First, a binary indicator offamily structure was included (1 = individual lived with both biological parents at age 14; 0 = respondent lived with one biological parent, a stepparent, other family member, foster family, or another family context).

Family economic status has also been linked with increased marital chances at the individual level and differences in Black and White marriage patters in the aggregate (South, 2001). Family economic status was operationalized in this study as family poverty. This measure was obtained from two sources, including the respondent’s family income for the past calendar year, and is derived from either the total income information provided by the parent or guardian in the home in which the respondent was living, or the total income reported by the respondent if living apart from the family. The final measure of family poverty status is dichotomous (1 = respondent lived in a family with an income below the poverty level; 0 = respondent lived in a family above the poverty level).

Maternal education has also been linked to marital outcomes and children’s attitudes toward marriage. Mothers with higher levels of education are more likely to foster non-traditional attitudes toward marriage and to expose their children to non-traditional female role models (Kiecolt & Acock, 1988). Based on this linkage, it is hypothesized that men whose mothers are more educated would be less likely to marry. Research also suggests that the effect of maternal education may be stronger for Whites and Hispanics than for Blacks (Michael & Tuma, 1985; South, 2001). In the current study, maternal education is dichotomous (1 = mother had completed high school; 0 = mother had not completed high school).

Method of Analysis

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) is used as the primary analytic strategy in the current study (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). HLM is an appropriate technique because it allows data from each interview point to be nested within persons while modeling variation in the likelihood of marriage. HLM also reduces selection bias by controlling for individual-level factors (e.g., IQ, family poverty) that may affect the non-random selection of individuals into marriage and incarceration while simultaneously estimating individual change. In this model, HLM is used to estimate the effect that changes in life circumstances, specifically incarceration, have on the likelihood of marriage while controlling for individual- level factors. Because the dependent variable is dichotomous, the Bernoulli probability model is employed to estimate the equations. Models are estimated separately for White, Hispanic, and Black members of the sample.

Equations are estimated on two levels. Level I represents the within-individual model. The primary goal of the Level I model is to assess the change in the likelihood of marriage as characterized by an intercept, a rate of change, and time-varying covariates. The slope is modeled as a function of the respondent’s age and is designed to account for change in the dependent measure over time. In the current model, the natural log of age was included to account for the non-linear change in the likelihood of marriage. The functional form of the time measurement fit the aggregate trend well and the trends as considered by race and ethnicity.9

Time-varying covariates are also included in the Level I model as measures of pivotal life-course events. The time-varying covariates were separated into two parts to account for possible bias that may be present because of non-random distribution of error in the model (see Horney et al., 1995). At level I, time-varying covariates are group-mean-centered. In addition, the individual means of each time- varying covariate are included as predictors of the intercept in Level II. This modeling technique allows for the estimation of within-person change by separating the effect of change in incarceration status on the odds of marriage from average differences in rates of imprisonment while controlling for time- varying and static covariates.

The Level II model represents the between-persons model. An equation is estimated at Level II for each parameter included in the Level I model. The objective of the Level II model is to identify predictors that are related to the extent of individual differences in both the coefficients for the base marriage rate and the change in the likelihood of marriage over time. A group of predictors are also included at Level II as individual-level controls for non- random selection of men into incarceration. In addition, a separate equation is estimated for each of the six time-varying covariates at Level II. Different than the equations for the slope and the intercept, an error term is not included in these estimates. The slopes for the time-variant variables are not allowed to vary across individuals because significant variation in the slopes was not observed.10 In fixing the slopes, it is assumed that the effect of the time-varying covariates does not vary across individuals.

Results

The current analysis proceeds in two phases. First, within- individual change in the likelihood of marriage is examined. Marital outcomes are considered in light of time-variant measures of incarceration, employment, military participation, and education. Second, individual, static measures are included in the models to test if the effect of incarceration on marriage is maintained after controlling for demographic characteristics, family structure, and value orientation.

Unconditional Models

The unconditional model is the first model estimated. This null, random effects model includes only the change parameter (log of age) and is designed to estimate the size of the variation in the average probability of marriage and provide reliability estimates for the sample mean and growth parameter. As shown in Table 2, there is significant variation in the likelihood of marriage across respondents and over time. The significant χ^sup 2^ values signal that men differed in their chances of marriage at the beginning of the study and that the likelihood of marriage varies over time. The reliability coefficients further confirm the appropriateness of the models.11 The reliability estimates for the intercepts and growth parameters are moderately high, indicating that little of the variation observed is due to model error.

Fixed Effects Models

Level I model

The second model estimated, the Level I model, includes only the time-variant life event variables and examines the effect that a change in life circumstances has on the likelihood of marriage.12 All Level I variables are group-mean-centered.13 Table 3 reports the estimates from the Level I, within-person binomial model.

As hypothesized, incarceration had a strong, negative effect on marriage and the magnitude of the effect varied by race and ethnicity. Incarceration had the strongest impact on the marital outcomes for White men, with incarceration reducing the odds of marriage by 65 percent. In contrast, incarceration reduced the odds of marriage by 26 percent for Blacks and 34 percent for Hispanics. Prior incarceration further reduced the chances of becoming married, especially for Whites. White men who had been incarcerated in the past were 58 percent less likely to enter into marriage, while previous incarceration reduced the odds of marriage by 32 percent for Blacks and 41 percent for Hispanics.

To further explore the racial and ethnic variation in the effect of incarceration on marriage, z tests are estimated for each of the exogenous predictors in the models, by race and ethnicity, according to the formula presented by Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero (1998).14 The results from this analysis confirm that the negative effect of incarceration on marriage varies by race and ethnicity. Specifically, the tests reveal that Whites who have been incarcerated are significantly less likely to become married than Blacks (z = 3.17) or Hispanics (z = -2.37). The z test for the Hispanic and Black contrast was not statistically significant (z = 0.59). In addition, previous incarceration was not found to vary significantly by race and ethnicity, although the White/ Black contrast for previous incarceration did approach statistical significance (z = -1.69). These findings suggest that incarceration has a qualitatively different affect on the marital outcomes for Whites than it does for Blacks and Hispanics.

With the exception of education, the remaining life-course event measures significantly improved one’s chances of marriage. Consistent with exchange theories of marriage, employment had a strong, positive effect on marriage for all racial and ethnic groups. Becoming employed full time increased the odds of marriage by 22 percent for Hispanics and Whites and 19 percent for Blacks. The z-score contrasts were not significant for the employment variables, further reinforcing the universal importance of employment for marriage outcomes.

Military participation was also associated with increased opportunities for marriage, especially for Hispanics. Entering the military increased the odds of marriage by 68 percent for Hispanics, 55 percent for Blacks, and 27 percent for Whites. The z-score contrasts were not statistically significant, although the White/ Black (z = -1.23) and White/Hispanic (z = -1.28) contrasts did approach statistical significance. These findings highlight the importance of including military participation in studies of marriage and in life-course research in general.

Although education has been linked with improved chances of marriage in previous research, it did not play a significant role in the current analysis. Education was only statistically significant in the White model, and the magnitude of the effect was small. A 1- year increase in the education was associated with a 7 percent increase in the odds of marriage.

Full HLM model

To further examine the effect tha\t changes in life events have on the likelihood of marriage, a set of explanatory variables are added to Level II to account for individual differences in the likelihood of marriage. The model as presented in Table 4 includes all Level I and Level II predictors and is designed to consider the effect of life-course events, specifically incarceration, on the likelihood of marriage, net of individual level controls.15

In contrast to the substantial findings for the level I model, the individual-level factors had little influence on marital outcomes and did not vary significantly by race and ethnicity.16 None of the demographic influences, value orientation constructs, or family history predictors were significantly related to marriage for the Black and Hispanic samples. For Whites, individuals who grew up in urban areas and those that held traditional value orientations were more likely to become married, but the effects were small.

The inclusion of individual-level controls at Level II also did little to change the magnitude or significance of the within-person effects. Even after controlling for a host of individual level factors, current incarceration remained a strong, negative predictor of marriage. Overall, life-course event variables had moderately strong, significant effects on marriage, but the individual-level factors had only minimal impacts.

Discussion and Conclusions

The goal of this paper is to examine racial and ethnic variation in the effects of incarceration on marriage. Based on the findings presented in this work, it is apparent that reduced marital opportunities are a collateral consequence of incarceration. Across racial and ethnic groups, becoming incarcerated reduced the chances of marriage by a minimum of 25 percent. Prior incarceration further diminished one’s chances of marriage by at least a third. Incarceration is clearly a central event in the life course and has strong implications for offending and larger life trajectories.

The effect of incarceration on marriage also varied across racial and ethnic groups. Incarceration had the strongest impact on the marital chances of Whites. In fact, incarceration had a qualitatively different effect on Whites than it did for Blacks or Hispanics. Incarceration reduced the odds of marriage for Whites by at least one half; although, as a whole, Whites were more likely to be married, whereas incarceration diminished the marital chances of Hispanics by one third and Blacks by approximately one fourth. The variation across racial and ethnic groups was maintained, even after controlling for a time-variant life-course events and individual- level controls.

The research findings also suggest that the stigma of incarceration may vary by race and ethnicity. Specifically, it appears that incarceration may impart less of a stigma for Black males than it does for White males. The differences in stigma and marriage opportunities have been attributed to the deficit of available men in some urban communities. For example, in the District of Columbia, 7 percent of the adult male population is incarcerated on a given day, and 75 percent will be incarcerated at some point in their lives (Braman, 2002). Women living in these neighborhoods may have little choice than to marry someone with a prison record. While interviewing young men in Washington, DC, Braman (2002) discovered that men were cognizant of the shortage of available men in the community and made marriage and relationship decisions accordingly. Most men shied away from serious relationships because they knew that they had substantial choice and capital in the market. In addition, cultural differences, like those described by Anderson (1989a, 1989b), may also explain variation in the effect of incarceration on marriage. As discussed, young men often find support in peer groups upon release from incarceration, but these peer networks place little value on marriage. It may be that Black members of the sample had little desire to enter into marriage, regardless of social stigma or capital in the marriage market.

The results of the research also suggest that there may be intervening mechanisms at work in the relationship between incarceration, race, and marriage. Specifically, it appears that incarceration may take on a different meaning in some communities. In communities where imprisonment is rare, incarceration may impart a strong stigma and serve as a deterrent for women to marry men who have been incarcerated; whereas, in communities where incarceration is prevalent, incarceration creates a disincentive for eligible men to marry. The smaller incarceration effect observed for Blacks may be a result of mass incarceration on marriage markets and gender norms. In the same light, the strong effect of incarceration on Whites may be partly an artifact of the concentration of incarceration in minority communities. The relative effect of communitylevel incarceration rates on individual-level marital outcomes is beyond the scope of the current work and warrants further research.

The research findings for Hispanics should also be noted. Hispanic males had similar marriage rates to that of White males with nearly half (49 percent) entering into marriage during the study period. The effect of incarceration on marriage is not statistically different for Blacks and Hispanics; however, the results do suggest that incarceration is more detrimental for marriage opportunities for Hispanics than Blacks. Some of this difference may be attributed to variation in cultural expectations previously mentioned. Although the stigma of incarceration may have reduced the chances of marriage for Hispanic males, it is evident that they continued to seek out marital opportunities following incarceration.

The findings for Hispanic males take on particular importance in light of recent sentencing research. This research suggests that Hispanic males, particularly those that are young and unemployed, pay a similar imprisonment penalty to that of Blacks (see Spohn & Holleran, 2000). The current research highlights the cumulative disadvantage of imprisonment for marital chances. Taken together, it appears that incarceration becomes a double punishment for Hispanics. Not only are Hispanics more likely to be incarcerated than Whites, but the marital chances are further reduced by incarceration to a greater degree than Blacks. Hispanic males are at a disadvantage at sentencing, and the hardship continues after incarceration.

These research findings must be tempered with three acknowledged limitations. First, this research only considers the effect of incarceration on the likelihood of marriage. The life-course perspective suggests that the nature of the marital bond may be more indicative of desistance than the marital bond itself (Laub et al., 1998; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Rutter, 1996; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Stable marriages characterized by commitment and mutual obligations afford more social capital and impart greater informal social control. Although this problem is common in this type of research (Horney et al., 1995; Western et al., 2004), future research should consider the effect that incarceration has on the quality of relationships developed after incarceration. Moreover, the characteristics of the marital dyad should also be considered. Research suggests that men who had been involved in the criminal justice system are more likely to marry women with similar criminal histories (Osborn, 1980; Osborn & West, 1979). Marriage in this instance actually increased the likelihood of offending.

Selection bias is also of concern in research of this type. Men who have been involved in crime often have limited social and economic capital. These deficiencies render an individual less desirable in the marriage market, regardless of incarceration experience. It is important to control for variables that are correlated with incarceration and marriage so that bias can be minimized. In the current analyses, a number of individual-level variables were included in the model to control for heterogeneity. Although the individual levels are appropriate based on the available data and existing literature, they fall short of including data on early childhood and adolescent experiences. More problematic is the absence of market and community-level factors from the model. Although the findings have been mixed, there is some evidence to suggest that the nature of the marriage market may have an effect on marital outcomes, especially for Blacks. The addition of community- level factors may help researchers understand racial differences in marriage. In the same light, this research is based only on male experiences. The research that has been conducted with females suggests that cohabitation may increase the chances of criminal behavior (Griffin & Armstrong, 2003). As such, the generalizability of the current results should be limited to a male only population.

Overall, two general conclusions can be drawn from the current research. First, the effect of incarceration on marriage is quite robust. Incarceration remained a significant, negative predictor of marriage even after controlling time-variant and static individual factors. Incarceration undermines the development of positive social relationships further reducing the likelihood of desistance. Not only are individuals removed from society during their stay of confinement, but imprisonment increases the chances that one will be further ostracized from the community upon return. Second, race and ethnicity do matter in determining marital opportunities following incarceration. Consistent with past research, incarceration had detrimental consequences for minorities; however, incarceration also had a disproportionate effect on marital opportunities for Whites. The research findings underscore the importance of considering marital outcomes by race and ethnicity. Future research \is needed to delve deeper into the racial and ethnic differences in the collateral consequences of incarceration.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Janet Lauritsen for her help on earlier drafts of this article.

1. Ethnicity was not included as a response option In the decennial census until 1970. In 1970, a sample of Americans was asked to denote Hispanic ethnicity. Indicators of Hispanic ethnicity became a permanent part of the census beginning in 1980 (see http:// www.census.gov/main/www/ cen2000.html).

2. The NLSY has formulated a series of weights to ensure representativeness of the sample. The Bureau of Labor Statistics makes available weights for single years; however, no single set of survey weights provides an accurate adjustment when using multiple years of data (Center for Human Resource Research, 2001). Consistent with prior research of this type (see Western, 2002), unweighted data were used for the current analyses.

3. As of 1984, 638 males of the military sample were no longer interviewed and 731 males from the non-Black, non-Hispanic economically disadvantaged group were excluded in 1990.

4. In total, 230 males died at some point during data collection, seven sample members were incarcerated eleven or more times during the study period, and 206 individuals failed to participate in data collection ten or more times. Although the nested structure of the HLM model facilitates the valid estimation of models when both the spacing and the number of observations vary by individual, the preceding cases were removed from the analyses because of poor data quality. Separate analyses (not shown) were conducted with the total sample, and substantive differences were not observed.

5. Respondents were asked to designate their race and ethnicity. Ethnicity was given primacy when developing the race/ethnicity contrasts. Most of the Hispanic men (69 percent) classified themselves as White and Hispanic. The remainder identified themselves as Black and Hispanic (1 percent) or of other race and Hispanic ethnicity (30 percent).

6. Previous research has confirmed the representativeness of the NLSY incarceration data to that of aggregate incarceration data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Western, 2002). The NLSY incarceration rates are similar to that of aggregate imprisonment rates. In addition, incarceration rates disaggregated by race and ethnicity are also representative.

7. A count measure representing the number of previous incarceration periods was included in initial models. The goal of this analysis was to explore the relationship between length of incarceration and marital outcomes. Because the results obtained from the count measure did not vary from that of the dichotomous measure and the data collection protocol do not provide for a precise measure of length of imprisonment, the dichotomous measure of prior incarceration was used.

8. Some of the men were over the age of 18 in 1983; therefore, this measure includes individuals incarcerated as young adults and juveniles. This measure was included in the analyses as a control for incarceration in late adolescence and early adulthood.

9. The appropriateness of the growth trend was considered in a number of ways. The growth trend was analyzed using the total dataset, data subdivided by race and ethnicity, and individual growth trajectories. In addition, separate growth measures were constructed (e.g., age2, age4) and included in the model. The log of age predictor was the best fit for the aggregate models, race and ethnicity contrasts, and individual trends.

10. Random-coefficient models were estimated for each subject group to examine the variability in Level I coefficients (results not shown). The purpose of the random-coefficient model is to test if the relationship between the time-variant variables and the dependent measures vary across the population of subjects. In short, does the effect of incarceration on marriage for subject x vary substantially from the effect that incarceration has on marriage for respondent y? In each of the models estimated, the variance for the slopes of each of the life event variables were not significantly different than zero (see Kreft and De Leeuw, 1998, p. 43); therefore, each of the life course event variables was considered fixed in subsequent models. This research technique is consistent with previous work of this type (Griffin & Armstrong, 2003; Horney et al., 1995). Constraining the variation for these variables also improves the efficiency of the model. As noted above, the age(log) predictor was allowed to vary in all models. Details of these analyses are available from the author upon request.

11. The reliability of the coefficients is calculated as a ratio of the true parameter variance to the total observed parameter variance (see Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002:166). Reliability of (π^sub pi^) = Var(π^sub pi^)/ Var(π^sub pi^).

12. The equation for the final Level I model is as follows – ….

13. Results from the time-constant effects (group means) for the final HLM model are presented in Appendix B. Traditional HLM methodology suggests that each Level I variable should be group mean centered and that the group mean of the Level I variables be included at Level II. The group mean of the prior incarceration count measure was omitted from Level II in all estimates because it was highly correlated with the group mean of the incarcerated measure (.86). The results do not vary substantially when both predictors are included in the model. The coltinearity of the all remaining predictors was considered using a number of techniques. Correlation matrices were constructed for predictors by year, and VIF and tolerance statistics were calculated. In addition, the residuals for each model were graphed and examined. None of the results suggested possible biases associated with mulitcollinearity.

14. The equation for the …

15. The equation for the final Level II model is as follows. π^sub 0i^ = β^sub 00^ + β^sub 01^ *(Youthful Incarceration) + β^sub 02^ *(South) + β^sub 03^ *(Cognitive Ability) + β^sub 04^ *(Poverty) + β^sub 05^ *(Urban) + β^sub 06^ *(Lived with Parents) + β^sub 07^ *(Mother’s Education) + β^sub 08^ *(Traditional Values) + β^sub 09^ *(Group Mean of Incarceration) + β^sub 10^ *(Group Mean of Military) + β^sub 11^ *(Group Mean of Work) + β^sub 12^ *(Group Mean of Education) + r^sub 0i^

π^sub 1i^ = β^sub 10^

π^sub 2i^ = β^sub 20^

π^sub 3i^ = β^sub 30^

π^sub 4i^ = β^sub 40^

π^sub 5i^ = β^sub 50^

π^sub 6i^ = β^sub 60^

16. Measures of variance explained also confirm the lack of explanatory power at Level II. Taken as a whole, the individual- level variables explained approximately 1 percent of the variation in marriage for Whites and Hispanics and 2.5 percent for Blacks. In addition, the χ^sup 2^ values were statistically significant in the final models indicating that men differed in their chances of marriage at the beginning of the study and that the likelihood of marriage varies over time, even after controlling for a host of time variant measures and individual-level controls. A measure of variance explained was not available for the Level I variables. An appropriate pseudo-R^sup 2^ measure (e.g., Cox and Snell) has not been developed for the multilevel, binomial framework.

References

Amato, P. R. (1988). Parental divorce and attitudes toward marriage and family life. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 50, 453- 461.

Andersen, E. (1989a). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W. W. Norton.

Anderson, E. (1989b). Sex codes and family life among poor inner- city youth. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 501, 59-78.

Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. The Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813-846.

Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage: Part II. The Journal of Political Economy, 82, S11-S26.

Bennett, N. G., Bloom, D. E., & Craig, P. H. (1989). The divergence of black and white marriage patterns. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 692-722.

Blea, I. I. (1992). La chicana and the intersection of race, class, and sender. New York: Praeger.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1989). Transmission of marital and family quality over the generations: The effect of parental divorce and happiness. Journal of Divorce, 13, 41-58.

Braman, D. (2002). Families and incarceration. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 120-135). New York: The New Press.

Center for Human Resource Research. (2001). National longitudinal survey of youth data. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The impact of divorce on children. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 50, 619-648.

Duncan, G. J., Wilkerson, B., & England, P. (2003). Cleaning up their act: The impacts of marriage and cohabitation on licit and illicit drug use. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Edin, K., Nelson, T. J., & Paranal, R. (2001). Fatherhood and incarceration as potential turning points in the criminal careers of unskilled men (No. WP-01-02). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Elder, G. H. (1985). Life course dynamics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Elder, G. H. (1995). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4- 15.

Fagan, J., & Freeman, R. B. (1999). Crime and work. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 25, pp. 225- 290). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1995). Effects of marriage separation, and children on offending by adult males. In Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle (Vol. 4, pp. 249\-281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ferraro, K. F., Johnson, J. M., Jorgensen, S. R., & Bolton, F. G. (1983). Problems of prisoners’ families: The hidden costs of imprisonment. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 575-591.

Fishman, L. T. (1990). Women at the wall: A study of prisoners’ wives doing time on the outside. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1993). Mate availability and family structure among African Americans in US Metropolitan areas. Journal of Marriage Et the Family, 55, 288-302.

Freeman, R. B. (1991). Crime and the employment of disadvantaged youths. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fu, H., & Goldman, N. (1996). Incorporating health in to models of marriage choice: Demographic and sociological perspectives. Journal of Marriage 6 the Family, 58, 740-758.

Goeke, J. C. (1980). Factors related to the alienation of the male married offender from his family. Saratoga, CA: Century Twenty One.

Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1986). Sex differences and entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 91-109.

Goldstein, J. R., & Kenney, C. T. (2001). Marriage delayed or marriage forgone? New cohort forecasts of first marriage for US women. American Sociological Review, 66, 506-519.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Greenberg, E. F., & Nay, W. R. (1982). The intergenerational transmission of marital instability reconsidered. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 44, 335-347.

Griffin, M. L., & Armstrong, G. S. (2003). The effect of local life circumstances on female probationers’ offending. Justice Quarterly, 20, 213-240.

Grogger, J. (1995). The effect of arrests on the employment and earnings of young men. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 51 – 71.

Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 121-162). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hariston, C. F. (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influence incarcerated fathers’ relationships with their children. Child Welfare, 77, 617-639.

Holzer, H. J. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects for less- educated workers. New York: Russell Sage.

Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60 (5), 655-673.

Huebner, B. M. (2005). The effect of incarceration on marriage and work over the life course. Justice Quarterly, 22, 281-303.

Kiecolt, K. J., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The long-term effects of family structure on gender role attitudes. Journal of Marriage ft the Family, 50, 709-717.

Kling, J. R. (1999). The effect of prison sentence length on the subsequent employment and earnings of criminal defendants. Princeton, NJ: Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.

Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kreider, R. M., & Fields, J. M. (2002). Number, timing, and duration of marriage and divorces: 1996. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.

Laub, J., Nagin, D. S., Sampson, R. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225-238.

Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 28, pp. 1-70). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Lichter, D. T., Anderson, R. N., & Hayward, M. D. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 412-431.

Lichter, D. T., LeClere, F. B., & McLaughlin, D. K. (1991). Local marriage markets and the marital behavior of black and white women. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 843-867.

Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., & Landry, D. J. (1992). Race and the retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men? American Sociological Review, 57, 781-799.

Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parenthood-the case of prisoner’s families. Family Relations, 35, 79-85.

MacDonald, M., & Rindfuss, R. R. (1981). Earnings, relative income, and family formation. Demography, 18, 123-136.

McDermott, K., & King, R. D. (1992). Prison rule 102: Stand by your man. In R. Shaw (Ed.), Prisoners’ children: What are the issues? London: Routledge.

Michael, R. T., & Tuma, N. B. (1985). Entry into marriage and parenthood by young men and women: The influence of family background. Demography, 22, 515-544.

Nagin, D. S., & Waldfogel, J. (1995). The effects of criminality and conviction on the labor market status of young British offenders. International Review of Law and Economics, 15, 109-126.

Nurse, A. M. (2000). Coming home: The transition from incarcerated to paroled young father. In G. L. Fox 6 M. L. Benson (Eds.), Families, crime, and criminal justice (Vol. 2, pp. 281- 308). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Nurse, A. M. (2002). Fatherhood arrested: Parenting from within the juvenile justice system. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563-591.

Oppenheimer, V. K., Blossfeld, H. P., & Wackerow, A. (1995). United States of America. In H. P. Blossfeld (Ed.), The new role of women: Family formation in modern societies (pp. 150-173). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Oropesa, R. S. (1996). Normative beliefs about marriage and cohabitation: A comparison of non-Latino whites, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 58, 49-62.