Cited by 79Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCrime Patterns and InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Building the Ties that Bind, Breaking the Ties that Don't: Family Support, Criminal Peers, and Reentry Success

Boman, John H., Mowen, Thomas J.·2017·Criminology & Public Policy

Abstract

Research Summary Although family support is an important protective factor against recidivism, less is known about how the domain of family works with other elements of the risk–need–responsivity model. By using the Serious and Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative (SVORI) data, we explore whether family and criminal peers have (a) independent and (b) interdependent effects on substance abuse and crime after release from prison. The outcomes of multilevel models demonstrate that the risk factor of criminal peers is as strong, or stronger, of a predictor of substance abuse and crime as is the protective factor of family support for offenders during reentry. Policy Implications Institution‐based policies aimed primarily at improving family ties for reentering offenders must begin focusing as much on peers as they do on family. These programs should instead focus on improving family ties (thereby increasing a protective factor) while focusing on severing the offender's relationships with criminally inclined friends (thereby decreasing a risk factor).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9133.12307

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Set Free Model's services (certified peer support, supportive housing, co-occurring substance use disorder treatment, education, training, and career placement, intensive case management, and positive community reintegration) are proven to reduce further criminal recidivism and problematic substance use.

    “Living on a therapeutic campus for an average of 6 to 18 months, participants engage in a suite of services proven to reduce further criminal recidivism and problematic substance use.”

    From Reducing criminal recidivism in Alaska: The Set Free Model (2023) · cites this paper as Boman & Mowen, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boman, J. H., & Mowen, T. J.
Affiliations
Bowling Green State University (US)
Corresponding author
Boman, John H.
Venue
Criminology & Public Policy
Published
2017-08
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
753-774
ISSN
  • 1538-6473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9133
OpenAlex
W2744953153
Cited by
79
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Criminology & Public Policy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
family support, recidivism, Risk-Need-Responsivity model, prisoner reentry, substance abuse, violent offenders, protective factors, risk factors, prisoner release, peer relationships

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review