Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Department of Correctional Services in South Africa views the social reintegration of offenders as vital to their return to society as law-abiding citizens. However, research into the experiences of young adult ex-offenders during family reintegration in rural areas in South Africa is limited. Evidence shows that re-entry in rural contexts is difficult, and societal expectations at this life stage heighten the risk of maladjustment and reoffending. Seven young adult male ex-offender volunteers from the Sekhukhune district, Limpopo, who returned to their families after incarceration were self- and purposively selected for the study, during which their experiential meanings attributed to their reintegration into their families, benefits and challenges were described and interpreted. A qualitative interpretative phenomenological analysis research design was adopted for the study, and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. Data were analysed following the IPA data analysis guidelines, and the emerged themes were grounded in the concept of person–family fit. The findings show that the process of family re-entry was an emotional rollercoaster for the participants post their incarceration. While they experienced a second chance in the form of returning home, family support, and interdependency in the family, they also encountered obstacles such as not being trusted, name-calling, intolerance, contrasting roles post incarceration, and unemployment. The findings have implications for a systems approach to forming formal partnerships and continuous deliberations among the family, correctional centres, other government departments and employers both during and following incarceration.

Keywords

Family reintegration male ex-offenders person–family fit rural area young adults

South Africa faces a high number of male offenders being released from correctional centres every year to their communities through social reintegration (Department of Correctional Services [DCS], 2021, 2022). However, this process is rarely smooth, as many ex-offenders, including parolees, struggle to reintegrate successfully, which often results in recidivism; nevertheless, official statistics on recidivism rates among this population are lacking (Guse & Hudson, 2014; Musekwa et al., 2021). Persistent recidivism among ex-offenders has led to rehabilitation and reintegration initiatives within South African correctional centres being criticised as inadequate, revealing a gap between policy and practice (Murhula & Singh, 2019; Musekwa et al., 2021). Among other barriers, institutional constraints such as limited resources, overcrowding and a shortage of personnel hinder rehabilitation and reintegration efforts in the country (DCS, 2021; Murhula & Singh, 2019). Consequently, many ex-offenders are insufficiently prepared upon their release to navigate broader social obstacles, including criminal stigma, unemployment, poverty, substance abuse, and strained relationships that may exacerbate domestic and gender-based violence (GBV) (Gungea, 2025; Perkins & Winder, 2025; Wadei et al., 2023). Furthermore, young ex-offenders face developmental pressures such as establishing independence, securing employment, and fulfilling traditional masculine responsibilities. These intensify the difficulties of social reintegration (Andersen et al., 2020).

Nevertheless, to support offenders in overcoming these difficulties, reduce recidivism and promote successful reintegration, the DCS introduced the Social Reintegration Services Framework in 2020/2021 for parolees. This framework focuses on delivering impactful reintegration initiatives in collaboration with community partners (DCS, 2021, 2022; Mnisi & Schoeman, 2023). This implies having reintegration interventions that are targeted at specific goals (i.e., employment; prosocial relationships; addressing offenders’ specific risks and needs) and involve the government, non-government organisations (NGOs) and the public (Mnisi & Schoeman, 2023; Panuccio, 2021). Restorative justice is one such intervention, which provides a valuable platform for victim healing as well as offender rehabilitation and reintegration (DCS, 2022; Mpofu et al., 2024; Murhula & Singh, 2019). As part of its 2023/24 mandate, the Department further employed 40% of the youth, educated young men on crimes against women and children, and raised awareness concerning the stigmatisation of young offenders engaging in societal reintegration (DCS, 2023/2024). The rehabilitation and social reintegration programmes for young ex-offenders offered by the DCS also include preparatory programmes on sexual offences (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development [DoJ&CD], 2017).

However, these efforts are not sufficient. For instance, South African young offenders commit various serious crimes such as burglary, robbery, shoplifting, embezzlement of funds or assets, and murder, which require more attention from the DCS. Some of these crimes have negatively affected the young offenders’ social reintegration (Mazorodze, 2020; Penelope et al., 2025). Youth education levels remain low, and the youth unemployment rate is very high (Statistics South Africa [Stats SA], 2024). The DCS (2023/2024) admits that youth empowerment, which includes increased employment rates among young male ex-offenders, remains a priority.

While social reintegration frameworks are indeed being implemented and research on offenders’ rehabilitation is expanding in South Africa, a gap remains in that few studies have investigated the experiences of young adult ex-offenders’ reintegration within their families. This gap is particularly concerning given that families are spaces where developmental pressures and problems relating to reintegration converge, making them central to the reintegration process, as they can either support successful reintegration or contribute to reoffending among ex-offenders (DCS, 2005; Lokenga et al., 2023; Taylor, 2016).

Furthermore, only a small number of studies have focused on offender family reintegration in rural areas of South Africa, with most existing research having concentrated on corrections-related issues more broadly (e.g., Chikadzi, 2017; Chikadzi et al., 2022; Murhula & Singh, 2019). Offender reintegration in rural communities is often more complex, as residents carry a greater responsibility for supporting desistance in environments where formal services are limited. Rural areas frequently lack critical infrastructural support, including treatment programmes, behavioural health services, transportation, housing, and employment opportunities, which are more readily available in urban settings (Balzarini et al., 2025; Bowman & Ely, 2020; Penelope et al., 2025; Singer & Kopak, 2021). Furthermore, reduced social privacy amplifies community-level stigma, whereas the relative obscurity of larger urban populations can shield ex-offenders and their families from such scrutiny, often making reintegration comparatively easier in urban contexts (Huebner et al., 2019).

Considering these difficulties, an investigation of the under-researched area of young adult ex-offenders’ family reintegration in the rural areas of South Africa is of value.

Theoretical framework

In this study, the person–environment (P–E) fit theory was used to explore young adult male ex-offenders’ experiences of being back in their family environment, following the concept of person–family fit as proposed by Padmasiri et al. (2019). The person–family fit construct follows the main theoretical premises of person–environment fit theory, namely demands–abilities (D–A fit) as a complementary fit and supplies–values (S–V) fit as a supplementary fit. Drawing on literature on these premises, Padmasiri et al. (2019, p. 6) defined person–family fit as “the fit between the demands of the person’s family and his/her ability to fulfil those demands (D–A fit) and the supplies available in the family environment to fulfil his/her values (S–V fit), with the outcomes affecting the individual’s work.” While the person–family fit concept was originally developed to fully understand a person’s fit within the workplace, our study advances this concept beyond the workplace.

Recent research has examined how individual–environment fit affects outcomes in various contexts, from students’ fields of study to larger geographic communities, supporting calls to extend person–environment fit theory to diverse life contexts and transitions (Hill et al., 2016; Kandler et al., 2024; Roberts & Robins, 2004; Weston et al., 2024). In these studies, a key distinction remains between subjective fit and objective fit, with mismatches potentially leading to psychological difficulties (Kristof, 1996). Building on this, we contend that the person–family fit construct can play a role in understanding the reintegration of ex-offenders into their families and contribute to the broader person–environment fit literature. Accordingly, the demands–abilities (D–A) fit representing the complementary match between the ex-offender’s abilities and the family’s demands and the supplies–values (S–V) fit representing the supplementary match between the ex-offender’s values and the family’s supplies were considered and are presented in the study findings and discussion.

The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) nature of the study informed the decision to use person–family fit as a central analytical lens. Consequently, data collection instruments were developed and questions were posed in order to probe ex-offender and family compatibility. Furthermore, during data analysis, person–family fit served as a guiding interpretive lens for identifying themes. The coding process paid particular attention to indicators of high fit (e.g., receiving a second chance and family support) as well as misfit (e.g., lack of trust and intolerance, stigma and unmet needs). By situating the family as the central environment of analysis, we were able to uncover the nuanced and dynamic interactions that either facilitated reintegration or intensified marginalisation. These are discussed at length and contextualised in existing local and international literature.

Methods

Participants

Self-selection sampling was employed to recruit all seven participants, supplemented with purposive sampling to ensure that the participants met the following inclusion criteria: young adult males aged 24 years and above, had previously been incarcerated for any criminal offence, had returned to their families in the Sekhukhune District, Limpopo, had been released for at least 6 months, and were not under the supervision of the DCS. The final sample comprised participants aged between 24 and 34 years. To gain access to the participants, the primary researcher collaborated with the ex-offenders’ forum in Sekhukhune District to present the purpose, scope and procedures of the study to potential participants. The researcher’s contact information was shared with potential participants, allowing them to reach out voluntarily. All the participants agreed to take part. Guided by qualitative IPA research design guidelines, which emphasise in-depth data explication, the researcher posed the main research question to each participant after collecting demographic information and establishing rapport at the start of the interview. The sample size was aligned with IPA guidelines, which recommend smaller, purposive samples to make detailed interpretative analysis possible and ensure saturation (Smith & Osborn, 2008).

Interview guide

An interview guide with 10 questions was used. The main question was:

Please tell me about your experience of re-entering your family after release from the correctional centre.

The remaining questions were used as follow-up questions to probe for more contextual details.

Procedure

Semi-structured interviews, lasting approximately 60 min each, were conducted in a secure school and community hall in the form of a dialogue and in Sepedi. The interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and translated into English by the primary researcher and verified by the secondary researcher. Credibility and confirmability of the findings were strengthened through member checks, iterative questioning, and triangulation. Triangulation, which further increased transferability, was achieved by cross-verifying data from multiple sources and verifying the experiences of the participants against the field notes that were taken during the interviews, interview transcripts and voice recordings (Curtin & Fossey, 2007).

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at Unisa. Each young adult ex-offender signed a consent form after having been informed of the study’s details, including risks, benefits, and their rights. To ensure anonymity, a pseudonym was assigned to each participant. Participants were debriefed after each interview and offered referrals for free psychological counselling services at a local hospital, but none of them indicated that they required these services.

Data analysis

Smith and Osborn’s (2008) IPA guidelines for data analysis were followed. Each transcript was subjected to a process involving close engagement with the text to make notes on the content, language, context, interpretations, and participants’ emotional responses; identification of preliminary themes; grouping of themes into clusters based on similarities and differences, thus forming superordinate and subordinate themes with data extracts. Interpretive writing of each superordinate theme followed immediately, using the concept of person–family fit (Padmasiri et al., 2019), to represent the core essence of individual participants’ experiences. The participants are referred to as young men in the following section in order to make the findings relatable.

Findings and discussion

Two superordinate themes emerged, which represent the young men’s positive and negative experiences and meanings of re-entering their families after incarceration: What I stand to gain by returning home; and Returning home – an uncomfortable terrain.

What I stand to gain by returning home

This theme captures the positive experiences associated with re-entry into the family context. These positive experiences nevertheless occurred in a context of conditional acceptance, whereby the young men were required to fulfil certain conditions. The following sub-themes emerged from this main theme:

Reinstatement/second chance

The young men reported that being back home represented a necessary second chance. They saw this as an opportunity to start over, enjoy their freedom and behave as responsible adults, as expected by their families. Two young men expressed this meaning as follows: “I am grown up, and I can see that my family is at peace . . . I do not want to disturb the current situation by going back to the wrong things . . . I want to . . . achieve good things for myself” (James); “I want her [girlfriend] and I to start afresh . . . be as close to my children as possible . . . I will be a happy man. I will hustle for them. I am a grown-up man” (Kamogelo).

Research indicates that most ex-offenders are homeless after their release from incarceration. This may be due to several reasons, including unforgiving families, unwelcoming community members, media stories about the committed crimes, potential harm to the ex-offenders, unavailability of temporary supportive housing for ex-offenders, including those in rural communities, and unaffordability of houses (Bowman & Ely, 2020; Colon, 2022; James, 2025; Liem & Weggemans, 2018; Trang & Khoi, 2023). However, the young men were fortunate to have been welcomed back home (also noted by Yin et al., 2022). In light of the D–A fit dimension of the person–family fit concept (Padmasiri et al., 2019), the young men reported that their involvement in crime disrupted family stability. This highlighted what they learnt about their family dynamics and their failure to meet family demands when engaging in criminal activities. Consequently, they aimed at maintaining the formed structures of nuclear families and intimate relationships involving co-parenting, cohesion and peace. The young men met these demands by desisting from crime, which signified their ability to change (Bidola et al., 2024; Espanto, 2024; Khoshnami et al., 2022; Ouellette et al., 2017; Panuccio, 2021; Trang & Khoi, 2023).

We noted with regard to the S–V fit dimension that being given a second chance by their families was equated with the ideals that the young men valued. This opportunity represented a chance to demonstrate maturity by making a positive, age-appropriate contribution to the lives of their loved ones and showing preparedness for personal development, including securing employment (Bidola et al., 2024; Espanto, 2024; Lares & Montgomery, 2020; Liem & Weggemans, 2018). These reflect the young men’s reformed interests, preferences, and goals (Padmasiri et al., 2019). Although conditional, the acceptance by family members gave the young men a sense of belonging and happiness (De Cooman & Vleugels, 2022; Trang & Khoi, 2023).

Family support

The young men relied on their families’ support, including availability and tangible assistance such as food, clothing, and sometimes money, to facilitate their successful reintegration. For instance, Kamogelo stated: “My mother is there for me . . . gives me money for job hunting . . . buys my kids some clothes . . . at least I know there is someone who still cares about me.” Sabelo echoed this, stating: “They normally give me support in terms of finances, clothing, and other stuff I need.” James expressed some reservations, however, indicating that while he accepted financial support, at his age, he should be providing for himself and his family rather than taking from them: “It is still not ok because I take the last money from them. I feel embarrassed about myself . . . to help me with job application.” Nevertheless, the support they received helped all of them to survive outside the correctional centres.

In the context of the S–V fit dimension, the young men’s families met their basic needs by providing instrumental support, as well as the emotional support necessary for their reintegration (Bidola et al., 2024; Colon, 2022; Khoshnami et al., 2022; Panuccio, 2021; Seyidoğlu & Kizmaz, 2024; Trang & Khoi, 2023), for which the young men expressed their gratitude. However, the concept of person–family fit does not make allowance for the possibility of an individual feeling ambivalent about his or her family’s support, and therefore, did not explain James’s simultaneous gratitude for and reservations regarding the financial support received. De Cooman and Vleugels (2022) clarify this ambivalence by showing that the process of entering and finding fit in the environment of concern involves a multifaceted arrangement of navigating right ways of thinking and acceptable behaviours. Espanto (2024), Liem and Weggemans (2018) as well as Panuccio (2021) add that the family and intimate partners may have mixed perceptions regarding ex-offenders’ reintegration; while they may want to offer support, they may also experience a degree of strain associated with this effort. Nevertheless, the young men experienced rebuilt families and improved support (Molefi, 2020; Panuccio, 2021; Seyidoğlu & Kizmaz, 2024).

“We are family”

The young men further reported that their relationships with their family members appeared to be bi-directional in nature. After their release, the young men started working together with their family members to keep their family together as a unit. They reported that they played active roles like everyone else in their family, for instance, performing household chores and doing handyman tasks. For instance, Thabi said, “I am working as a handyman, and I still depend on them for most of the things I want. I am helping them so that they can help me financially.” Despite finding household chores such as cleaning unpleasant, Mike nevertheless assisted his family, explaining: “I also help my family with cleaning, but such jobs I do not like them. I do not have a choice since I am not working . . . We are family after all.” The young men conveyed a strong sense of interdependence within their families, describing how engaging in household and supportive activities affirmed their shared belief of “we are family.” Through these contributions, they were able to re-establish their place within the family unit, thereby redeeming themselves and contributing to family harmony.

Moeti described a different experience from that of the other young men, indicating that the mutual familial support that he enjoyed was a result of family values in existence prior to his incarceration, and not because of it. This is what he said: “I go fishing . . . My role is not so different in terms of what I used to do before incarceration . . . it was our responsibility . . . to keep the family together.”

In line with the D–A fit dimension, the young men’s contributions to the lives of their families through activities such as cleaning, fishing, and performing handyman tasks, demonstrated that they possessed abilities required to meet family demands and maintain family functioning. Pangngasekara (2024) confirms that working together as a family helps establish strong family bonds and maintains harmony. This finding further underlines an important aspect of the D–A fit dimension, namely the role of previously learnt and newly acquired skills. Both sets of life skills were found to support the young men’s reintegration into their families (Panuccio, 2021; Seyidoğlu & Kizmaz, 2024; Trang & Khoi, 2023; Yin et al., 2022).

With regard to the S–V fit dimension, the young men valued the mutual family support their family members provided, noting that it helped maintain family harmony and strengthen the families’ collective identity (Panuccio, 2021; Seyidoğlu & Kizmaz, 2024). This is supported by Leap and Thompson (2018) as well as Zhou and Gu (2025), showing that collective identities and sharing resources play a significant role in overcoming socio-ecological disruptions and forming resilience in rural communities. The concept of person–family fit also accounts for the fit between a person and a group of members, in this case, various family members, and the dynamics encountered (Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Panuccio, 2021; Seyidoğlu & Kizmaz, 2024).

Returning home – an uncomfortable terrain

Obstacles included difficulties these young men contended with daily, as well as the reactions of their family members towards them during the re-entry process. Every obstacle had emotional implications for the young men, which did not tally with their meanings of being back home and being part of a “family.” The following sub-themes elucidate this main theme:

Not being trusted cues

Not being trusted was one of the major obstacles that the young men encountered. Their past criminal behaviour placed them in an uncomfortable position, and they described the monitoring of their activities upon returning home as a sign of this lack of trust. This included the tendency of family members asking about their whereabouts, keeping them indoors and having neighbours checking on them and reporting their activities to their families. The young men’s reflections on this included the following:

Since I am at home . . . they make me angry . . . when something is missing, things like money or anything valuable, I am always the suspect. (Mike)

He [brother] wrongfully accuses me of stealing things from the family . . . has separated himself from us since I came back from jail . . . he [neighbour] reported to my brothers . . . telling lies about me . . . this is painful . . . They do not trust me. (Thabi)

This experience was reported as being detrimental to the young men’s re-entry process. Therefore, in terms of the S–V fit dimension, the families were unable to fulfil the personal value of trust that these young men regarded as crucial to their re-entry process (Colon, 2022; Padmasiri et al., 2019); they were constantly reminded of the possibility that they might revert to crime. Yin et al. (2022) confirm that ex-offenders’ past mistakes and the crimes they have committed can be used by family members to determine the level to which they can be trusted. This conclusion is reached even before the ex-offenders’ release from incarceration. In our study, this affected the young men who had committed the crimes of housebreaking, theft, sexual harassment, and attempted murder. Thus, acceptance of ex-offenders depends on the beliefs of the people they return to regarding the efficacy of rehabilitation programmes, the ex-offenders’ ability to change and safety in their personal spaces (James, 2025; Ouellette et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2022). The young men in this study continued to face the consequences of their past crime by not being trusted, despite having served their sentences. This lack of trust exposes ex-offenders, including those in rural areas, to public scrutiny and reinforces the stigma associated with their past mistakes (Liem & Weggemans, 2018; Trang & Khoi, 2023), which shows that fitting into a family is an ongoing process of negotiation and unguaranteed perfect fit (De Cooman & Vleugels, 2022; Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024). This increases the chances of developing mental health problems, including feelings of pain and anger, as well as a sense of low self-esteem and helplessness, family fights and separation (Bidola et al., 2024; Colon, 2022; Kallenbach, 2023; Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024).

Name-calling and intolerance

The young men reported enduring name-calling, with family members using the labels “criminal” and “lepantiti,” which translates into English as “prisoner.” The young men experienced these labels as provocative because they referred to criminality or the harshness of incarceration. Also, they shared that the use of these labels diminished their hope of being successfully reintegrated into their families and were painful. A selection of the young men expressed that: “They still call me names like ‘lepantiti’. I do not like that . . . they would be intolerant towards me . . . having a job will solve this problem . . .” (James); “My mother . . . might call me names. . . sometimes I wish I could just die . . . no one loves me” (Mike); “My other brother, the one who drinks . . . swears at me, calls me bad names . . . we distance ourselves from each other . . . my family sometimes do not tolerate me. As I am not working, I am just ‘mohola’ [a burden]” (Moeti); “I did not like how she [mother] responded to my request. I also used bad words towards her. She would also say why did I have children if I couldn’t provide for them?” (Kamogelo).

Generally, people tend to look down on, judge, humiliate or isolate those who have criminal records (Espanto, 2024; Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Mdakane et al., 2024; Perkins & Winder, 2025). Espanto (2024, p. 364) explains the notion of a “deviant label,” which ex-offenders internalise and start to see themselves in the way that the labels suggest. Labelling of ex-offenders intensifies their sense of inferiority (Chikadzi, 2017; Muleya, 2022; Trang & Khoi, 2023). Similarly, young men in this study reported feeling like a burden, reflecting this experience of inferiority.

With further regard to the S–V dimension, this demonstrated a mismatch between the young men’s values and what their family members provided; hence, they mentioned psychological problems such as feelings of inferiority and emotional pains, strained family relationships and suicidal thoughts (Baffour et al., 2021; Padmasiri et al., 2019). In addition, the young men’s unemployment and financial status exacerbated the situation, thereby affecting their standing within their families (Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Panuccio, 2021). Literature shows that securing employment as an ex-offender is often a prolonged and challenging process marked by repeated rejection. Among other challenges, this includes limited linkages between probation service and skills development or job placement, lack of formal community organisations that help with job hunting, not having credible references and not having a valid residential address (Mdakane et al., 2024; Obatusin & Ritter-Williams, 2019; Trang & Khoi, 2023; Williams, 2025). The consumption of alcohol in the family placed further strain on already weakened relationships with the young men in this study (Şen-Aslan, 2021).

Contrasting roles post incarceration

The young men reported a disconnect between the roles they expected to assume as young adults providing for their families and the roles they actually performed in their daily lives (e.g., involving cleaning and cooking) following their release from correctional centres. They were unable to meet their own expectations and those of their families regarding a “man’s role.” They repeatedly referred to the phrase “being a man” when speaking about these expectations. This is what they expressed: “I am not happy with my role . . . cleaning and cooking is not the role for men. Men should provide for their families, not do the women’s duties” (Lesiba); “I should be able to depend on myself . . . buy myself bread . . . Prison has delayed my life” (Mike); “It [money received from family members] cannot support me and my children. So, the role I play is not for real men because real men can provide from the sweat of their foreheads” (Thabi).

Literature confirms that being released from a correctional centre may leave ex-offenders ill-prepared for the changes that await them outside the correctional centre (Bidola et al., 2024; Lares & Montgomery, 2020; Muleya, 2022; Trang & Khoi, 2023). The inability of these young men to provide while at this age (young adulthood) led to a developmental paradox, causing them to view incarceration and having a criminal record as life-delaying factors (Arditti & Parkman, 2011; Chikadzi, 2017; Colon, 2022; Liem & Weggemans, 2018; Panuccio, 2021). This delay was reported by the young men who had served sentences of between 1 and 5 years, suggesting that ex-offenders may have different and subjective perceptions of this delay, depending on their life goals post incarceration. This gave rise to stress and an identity crisis among them (also noted by Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Yin et al., 2022), leading to questioning their self-worth (Arditti & Parkman, 2011; Bidola et al., 2024; Khoshnami et al., 2022).

This further confirms the D–A misfit between their abilities and family demands. It also indicates that the transition between the two “homes” (the correctional centre and family setting) led to a dilemma for the young men, as employability and independence were fundamental expectations (Trang & Khoi, 2023). Therefore, securing a job was not only an important requirement for their successful re-entry but also central to the construction and affirmation of their adult identity.

Not being educated and having a criminal record were factors that thwarted the young men’s aspirations to “being a man,” as they made finding a job very difficult. Lesiba expressed his frustration in the following words: “I do not think I will be able to get what I want . . . a job. Because I am not educated, and I have a criminal record,” while Kamogelo reported: “the farmers declined me a job offer after I told them that I have a criminal record.”

Some reflected that the rehabilitation programmes at the correctional centres did not help in finding a job, with Sabelo, for instance, stating: “I attended some programmes inside the correctional centre . . . but they do not add any value to me getting qualifications.”

The young men’s experiences highlight the complex interplay among the family, societal structures and personal goals. Their low level of education (varying between Grade 4 and Grade 11) and lack of work-related skills (Espanto, 2024; Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Lares & Montgomery, 2020; Muleya, 2022; Ouellette et al., 2017; Trang & Khoi, 2023) hampered their ability to meet their familial demands. The external environments further shaped these dimensions. For instance, the correctional centres did not prepare the young men for employability post incarceration. Literature shows that such programmes are generally not adequate and do not meet the offenders’ needs; moreover, there is a shortage of psychological and social work personnel to implement these programmes, and there is a lack of aftercare support services (Chikadzi, 2017; Kallenbach, 2023; Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Zonke, 2022). While families subjected the young men to a second sentencing through distrust, intolerance, and criminal labels, the young men further experienced a third sentencing by employers, who also did not trust them (Bidola et al., 2024; Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024; Mdakane et al., 2024). Collectively, these led to the young men experiencing sadness, feeling stupid, feeling pain and a sense of helplessness, hopelessness and being stuck, and viewing their situation as difficult (Baffour et al., 2021; Espanto, 2024; Panuccio, 2021).

Implications for theory, practice, and research

The findings support the notion of person–family fit, emphasising that successful reintegration depends on both the ex-offenders’ abilities matching family demands (Demands–Abilities perspective) and the family providing resources and support that meet the ex-offenders’ needs and values (Supplies–Values perspective) (Padmasiri et al., 2019). In the context of our study, traditional gender roles, and societal expectations and pressures also influenced this fit (Andersen et al., 2020; Lokenga et al., 2023). This shaped family dynamics, created power imbalances and increased the risk of household conflict or GBV (Wadei et al., 2023). Strengthening this fit could help mitigate risks of psychosocial maladjustment and recidivism among the young male ex-offenders. Furthermore, the findings indicated the complexity of the situation the young men experienced, which Khoshnami et al. (2022) refer to as the “worry trap” into which ex-offenders often fall. In the case of our study, the following factors combined to create this trap, including nature of crimes committed, duration of incarceration, residence in a rural area, the structure and dynamics of the family they returned to (broken, extended and community-oriented), low levels of education, the lack of vocational skills, unemployment, financial dependency, and being male and an adult aged between one’s late twenties to thirties (Bowman & Ely, 2020; Liem & Weggemans, 2018; Stats SA, 2024; Trang & Khoi, 2023).

Practical implications take the form of a call for a systems approach to forming formal partnerships and continuous deliberations among the family, correctional centres, other government departments, and external stakeholders both during and after incarceration. The aim would be to ensure successful family reintegration in the identified rural setting (Bidola et al., 2024; Trang & Khoi, 2023), alignment with requirements of the White Paper on Corrections of 2005 and integrated interventions (Quirion et al., 2021). Based on the findings of our study, we recommend the development of what we propose calling a Rural Young Offender Empowerment Programme (RYOEP), which would incorporate the services of various professionals to support and empower rural-based young male offenders and ex-offenders as follows:

i. Offender–family link: Regular in-person visits and online meetings between offenders and immediate and extended family members could be arranged by psychologists and social workers employed by the DCS involved in VODs to familiarise family members with changes made by offenders during incarceration and to witness their remorse prior to their release to make re-entry easier (Molefi, 2020; Seyidoğlu & Kizmaz, 2024).

ii. Support and resources: In order for the family re-entry process to be managed effectively, the following need to be made available to young ex-offenders, their families and communities: coping skills, management of psychological distress and education on stigma as facilitated by registered counsellors employed by the Department of Health (Health Professions Council of South Africa [HPCSA], 2022); financial aid offered by National Treasury and private financial institutions so as to relieve the financial burdens on families to whom ex-offenders return; the prioritisation of primary, secondary and tertiary education in rural correctional centres by the DCS and the Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training; and the prioritisation of rural-based skills transference, employment and entrepreneurship by local farmers and the Department of Small Business Development.

iii. Support groups: The DCS could assist with the formation of support groups for young male ex-offenders which are anchored by rural-based community civic organisations as a means to encourage mutual support among ex-offenders (Kılıç & Tuysuz, 2024).

iv. Post-release rehabilitation monitoring: DCS professionals could monitor family reintegration as a means to increase success, to help solve problems encountered, and to continuously revise rural family reintegration programmes.

Our study focused on a small sample, consisting of young male ex-offenders who were available to participate, and in a family setting, to the exclusion of other environments such as the person–correctional centre fit. The findings of the study are context-specific and cannot be generalised to other settings. Future studies could overcome these limitations.

Conclusion

The findings of the study highlight the pivotal role families play in the reintegration of young male ex-offenders and the complex interplay among family dynamics, individual needs, and societal structures. From the person–family fit perspective, a sustainable reintegration requires coordinated, multi-sectoral interventions that are responsive to the interplay between family–individual supplies and needs and reconcile family–individual demands and abilities. Families cannot play this role in isolation, as reintegration entails interconnected social systems involving various government departments, employers, and community structures, as illustrated by the RYOEP proposed above.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank the University of South Africa for helping to steer the original project from which this paper was extracted.

ORCID iDs

Lontinah Nchabeleng

Masefako Andronica Gumani

Ethical considerations

The Department of Psychology’s research ethics committee at the University of South Africa provided ethical clearance for the study (Ref: 49121650).

Consent to participate

Each interested potential participant signed a written consent form to participate and granted permission to publish their anonymous data before participation. This research was conducted ethically in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author would like to disclose receipt of a grant from the National Research Foundation for the project from which this article was extracted titled “Young adult ex-offenders’ experiences of the transition from incarceration to the estranged family in a rural community.”

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Relevant research data have been cited in the paper.

References

Andersen

T. S.

Scott

D. A. I.

Boehme

H. M.

King

Mikell

(2020). What matters to formerly incarcerated men? Looking beyond recidivism as a measure of successful reintegration. The Prison Journal, 100(4), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520939295

Arditti

J. A.

Parkman

(2011). Young men’s reentry after incarceration: A developmental paradox. Family Relations, 60, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00643.x

Baffour

F. D.

Francis

A. P.

Chong

M. D.

Harris

Baffour

P. D.

(2021). Perpetrators at first, victims at last: Exploring the consequences of stigmatization on ex-convicts’ mental well-being. Criminal Justice Review, 46(3), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016820960785

Balzarini

K. T.

Pleggenkuhle

Kuzmickus

Clark

H. B.

Ingram

Swaby

(2025). Peeking through the looking glass: Rural residents’ beliefs regarding informal and formal supports for re-entering persons. Journal of Crime and Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2025.2532145

Bidola

V. R.

Leon

D. R.

Ignacio

Mori

M. J.

Valdez

S. N.

Bernabe

(2024). Life after bars: A narrative-case study of ex-convicts. American Journal of Human Psychology, 2(1), 22–32. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp

Bowman

E. I.

Ely

(2020). Voices of returning citizens: A qualitative study of a supportive housing program for ex-offenders in a rural community. The Prison Journal, 100(4), 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520939273

Chikadzi

(2017). Challenges facing ex-offenders when reintegrating into mainstream society in Gauteng, South Africa. Social Work, 53(2), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.15270/52-2-569

Chikadzi

Chanakira

Mbululu

(2022). Ex-offenders’ appraisal of offender programmes in South Africa: A human rights perspective. Journal of Human Rights & Social Work, 7, 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-022-00222-3

Colon

(2022). Ecological needs and challenges that impact ex-offenders’ reintegration and recidivism [Doctoral thesis, University of Arizona Global Campus]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2715490295?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses

10.

Curtin

Fossey

(2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.x

11.

De Cooman

Vleugels

. (2022). Person–environment fit: Theoretical perspectives, conceptualizations, and outcomes. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.377

12.

Department of Correctional Services. (2005). White Paper on CORRECTIONS in South Africa. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202001/whitepaperoncorrectionsinsouth-africa.pdf

13.

Department of Correctional Services. (2021). Annual report 2020/21 financial year. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/file/gcis_documents/202110/dcs-annual-report-pdf

14.

Department of Correctional Services. (2022). Annual report 2022/23 financial year. https://www.gov.za/documents/annual-reports/department-correctional-services-annual-report-20222023-13-sep-2023

15.

Department of Correctional Services. (2023/2024). Vote No. 22: Annual report 2023/2024 financial year. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202411/dcs-annnual-report-2023-24.pdf

16.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. (2017). Halfway houses: Rehabilitation and reintegration of parolees/ex-offenders: Correctional Services status report. https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/23900/

17.

Espanto

J. R.

(2024). Unlocking opportunities: The key to successful destigmatization of ex-offenders. Psychology & Education, 17(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10686841

18.

Gungea

(2025). Navigating the uncertainties: A study of the challenges women offenders experience post prison release. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajhss.2025.v07i01.001

19.

Guse

Hudson

(2014). Psychological strengths and posttraumatic reintegration of South African ex-offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(12), 1449–1465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13502299

20.

Health Professions Council of South Africa. (2022). Policy regarding Registered Counsellors: Framework for education, training, registration and scope of registered counsellors. https://www.hpcsa.co.za/Content/upload/professional_boards/psb/guidelines/Form%20258-the-framework-for-education-training-registration-and-scope-of-Registered-Counsellors.pdf

21.

Hill

P. L.

Jackson

J. J.

Nagy

Roberts

B. W.

Lüdtke

Trautwein

(2016). Majoring in selection, and minoring in socialization: The role of the college experience in goal change post high school. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12151

22.

Huebner

B. M.

Kras

K. R.

Pleggenkuhle

(2019). Structural discrimination and social stigma among individuals incarcerated for sexual offenses: Reentry across the rural–urban continuum. Criminology, 57(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12226

23.

James

R. E.

(2025). Planning for post-prison: Exploring the relationship between land-use management and the post-incarceration reintegration process [Master’s dissertation, University of Otago]. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/esploro/outputs/graduate/Planning-for-Post-Prison-Exploring-the-Relationship/9926714154301891?institution=64OTAGO_INST

24.

Kılıç

Tuysuz

M. K.

(2024). Exploring the challenges of reintegrating ex-offenders into society. Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics, 3(3), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.3.3.2

25.

Kallenbach

J. J.

(2023). Understanding the experiential intersections of violence, gender identities and mental health, in the accounts of male parolees, in Gauteng, South Africa [Master’s dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand]. https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/870b7381-0475-49f9-8588-22370a3d93c2/content

26.

Kandler

Kühn

Mönkediek

Forstner

A. J.

Bleidorn

(2024). A multidisciplinary perspective on person–environment fit: Relevance, measurement, and future directions. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214241242451

27.

Khoshnami

M. S.

Alipour

Arshi

Rafiey

Javadi

M. H.

(2022). Reintegration of ex-offenders convicted of violent crimes into the community in the Iranian context: A qualitative study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(8), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211022669

28.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

29.

Lares

L. A.

Montgomery

(2020). Psychosocial needs of released long-term incarcerated older adults. Criminal Justice Review, 45(3), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016820913101

30.

Leap

Thompson

(2018). Social solidarity, collective identity, resilient communities: Two case studies from the rural U.S. and Uruguay. Social Sciences, 7(12), 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120250

31.

Liem

Weggemans

(2018). Reintegration among high-profile ex-offenders. Journal of Developmental and Life-course Criminology, 4, 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-018-0093-x

32.

Lokenga

J. N.

Norvy

Asatsa

Nsonjiba

(2023). Family support and social reintegration of adolescent offenders in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Advanced Sociology, 4(1), 34–57. https://doi.org/10.47941/jas.1370

33.

Mazorodze

B. T.

(2020). Youth unemployment and murder crimes in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1), 1799480. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1799480

34.

Mdakane

Nkambule

Ngubane

S. A.

(2024). Caught in the spider’s web: The collateral consequences of the criminal record on higher education, professional registration, and employment opportunities. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 13(4), 362–373. https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs

35.

Mnisi

N. E.

Schoeman

(2023). An analysis of offender social reintegration programmes delivered by non-governmental organisations. Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology, 36(3), 1–20. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-crim_v36_n3_a1

36.

Molefi

N. D.

(2020). Exploring restorative justice programmes with inmates and ex-inmates in Lesotho [Master’s dissertation, Durban University of Technology]. https://www.phoenix-zululand.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Molefi-thesis-final-corrected-PDF-version-September-15-2020.pdf

37.

Mpofu

Z. F.

Mkhize

S. M.

Akpan

J. U.

(2024). Empathy, remorse, and restoration of dignity contributing to reduced recidivism: Assessing the role of restorative justice in promoting offender rehabilitation and reintegration in Durban. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2429018

38.

Muleya

(2022). Thinking about offender social reintegration: A case study of one NGO programme in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. International Social Work, 65(5), 1034–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820967425

39.

Murhula

P. B.

Singh

(2019). A critical analysis on offenders rehabilitation approach in South Africa: A review of literature. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 12(1). https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/ajcjs/vol12/iss1/12

40.

Musekwa

O. P.

Mulaudzi

T. M.

Takalani

J. F.

Makhado

(2021). Correctional rehabilitation programmes’ effectiveness: A phenomenological study of recidivists in a South African setting. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 31(1), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2020.1871234

41.

Obatusin

Ritter-Williams

(2019). A phenomenological study of employer perspectives on hiring ex-offenders. Cogent Social Sciences, 5, 1571730. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1571730

42.

Ouellette

H. M.

Applegate

B. K.

Vuk

(2017). The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: Policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 768–789. https://doi.10.1007/s12103-016-9382-2

43.

Padmasiri

M. K. D.

Kailasapathy

Jayawardana

A. K. L.

(2019). Development of the person–family fit construct: An extension of person–environment fit into the family domain. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 6(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093719830807

44.

Pangngasekara

(2024). Exploring the influence of role dynamics and status on collective family relationships in the modern context: A case study of the Medawachchiya Divisional Secretariat Area, Sri Lanka. The Journal of Bhiksu University of Sri Lanka, 15(II), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.4038/p.v15i2.15

45.

Panuccio

(2021). The expectations and challenges of youth reentry. In Cox

Abrams

L. S.

(Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of youth imprisonment. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology (pp. 379–411). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68759-5_18

46.

Penelope

N. M.

Sithuga

N. P.

Mulaudzi

(2025). The interrelationship between unemployment and crime rates in South Africa: An evaluation of socioeconomic factors and policy implications. International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy, 7(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.36096/ijbes.v7i4.903

47.

Perkins

Winder

(2025). ‘Will there ever be a stage in anybody’s life where they’re not thinking about what I did?’: Exploring the expectations of people convicted of sexual offences, regarding their release from medium and long-term custodial sentences. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2025.2538133

48.

Quirion

Hamel

Gadbois

Brunelle

(2021). Community-based social reintegration as a response to the organizational and clinical compartmentalization of criminalized individuals. Criminologie, 54(2), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.7202/1084287ar

49.

Roberts

B. W.

Robins

R. W.

(2004). Person–environment fit and its implications for personality development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00257.x

50.

Şen-Aslan

(2021). A family problem: The effects of parental alcohol on children. Nesne-Psikoloji Dergisi, 9(19), 127–138. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=967985

51.

Seyidoğlu

Kizmaz

(2024). The importance of family support on the desistance of the ex-convicts discharged from prison. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 12(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2024-1450449

52.

Singer

A. J.

Kopak

A. M.

(2021). Jail reentry and gaps in substance use disorder treatment in rural communities. Corrections, 8(5), 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2021.1967816

53.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776278.ch10

54.

Statistics South Africa. (2024). Youth in South Africa. https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/03-00-21/03-00-212024.pdf

55.

Taylor

C. J.

(2016). The family’s role in the reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516635085

56.

Trang

N. M.

Khoi

P. M.

(2023). Difficulties in reintegration of young ex-offenders. International Journal of Education and Social Science Research, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.37500/IJESSR.2023.6425

57.

Wadei

Osei-Wusu Adjei

Forkuor

(2023). Domestic conflict as a possible outcome of gender role change: Experiences and perceptions from rural and urban Ghana. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2282421

58.

Weston

S. J.

Condon

D. M.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Benet-Martínez

(2024). Supplemental material for the person–environment fit of immigrants to the United States: A registered report. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000504

59.

Williams

T. L.

(2025). Lived experiences of ex-offenders in securing stable employment after reentry programs [Doctoral thesis, Walden University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3226307266?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses

60.

Yin

E. T.

Boateng

Kofie

(2022). Family acceptance, economic situation, and faith community: The lived experiences of ex-convicts in Ghana. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 5, 100240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100240

61.

Zhou

(2025). Enhancing rural resilience through the rural revitalisation strategy in rural China: Evidence from Wushi Village, Hunan Province. Journal of Rural Studies, 113, 103493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103493

62.

Zonke

(2022). Experiences of social workers in facilitating rehabilitation programmes for incarcerated male offenders [Master’s dissertation, Stellenbosch University]. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/items/853c71ad-6d0f-4a96-aabb-e08568c04672

Young adult ex-offenders’ experiences of the transition from incarceration to their families in a rural community

Abstract

Keywords

Theoretical framework

Methods

Participants

Interview guide

Procedure

Ethical considerations

Data analysis

Findings and discussion

What I stand to gain by returning home

Reinstatement/second chance

Family support

“We are family”

Returning home – an uncomfortable terrain

Not being trusted cues

Name-calling and intolerance

Contrasting roles post incarceration

Implications for theory, practice, and research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

References