Do We Have It All Wrong? The Protective Roles of Peers and Criminogenic Risks From Family During Prison Reentry

Boman

2020

Sociology Compass

Self Cite

Social scientists have long recognized the salience of family and peers in understanding the etiology of crime and delinquency. Although criminologists universally acknowledge that family and peers can each exert prosocial and antisocial influences on offending behaviors, this area of study has gradually divided into a “good” and “bad” dichotomy. Specifically, family tends to be viewed and measured as a key factor that protects against offending. In stark contrast, peers tend to be viewed and measured as key correlates toward offending. In the following discussion, we explore the historical roots of this tendency through examining how key theoretical perspectives have shaped this dichotomy and informed current perspectives on the link between family, peers, and crime. We then highlight how some studies have stepped outside of this dichotomy to consider the independent and interdependent roles of family and peers as both positive and negative influences on offending behaviors. Overall, there is nothing new about understanding peers and family as both prosocial and criminogenic in their influences; rather, there is a greater need to (re)recognize these multifaceted roles in modern criminological studies.

Section: Empirical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 65%

(Re)Recognizing the multidimensional roles of family and peers on crime

Boman

2020

Sociology Compass

Self Cite

“…Finally, the fourth question, which partially loaded onto family conflict, taps an emotional response while the remaining two items of family conflict capture actions (fighting and being criticized). Thus, this item captures a negative emotion probably more analogous to a lack of emotional support rather than family conflict, which could explain why family conflict has been shown to relate to reincarceration (Mowen and Boman 2018b). Collectively, this discussion demonstrates that family support measures are theoretically and methodological distinct.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, accounting for family conflict as a separate measure to family support likely explains some of the differences in findings as well. Relatedly, factor analytic techniques demonstrated that one item used in prior research as a measure of family conflict (e.g., Mowen and Boman 2018b) was capturing negative emotions and not necessarily conflict. Again, these findings strongly suggest that researchers need to better consider the complexities and multidimensional nature of measures of family support and family conflict.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As some of these substances can be prescribed by a doctor, respondents were asked about illicit use and could respond yes (coded as “1”) or no (coded as “0”). Because these substances represent differing levels of severity, we apply severity weights outlined by Boman and Mowen (2018) and originally developed by Pandina, White, and Yorke (1981). As a result, more severe substances like heroin are not counted equally to less severe substances like marijuana.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Family Matters: Moving Beyond “If” Family Support Matters to “Why” Family Support Matters during Reentry from Prison

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Stansfield

Boman

2018

Self Cite

Objectives: Informed by social control and differential coercion and social support theories, we examine how multiple theoretically and methodologically distinct factors of family support relate to reincarceration, substance use, and criminal offending during prison reentry. Method: Using four waves of data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, we identified three separate factors of family support—interactional (e.g., providing guidance and support), instrumental (e.g., providing housing and transportation), and emotional (e.g., providing love and belongingness). A series of mixed-effects models examined how each form of family support related to reincarceration, substance use, and criminal offending. Results: Findings demonstrated that instrumental, but not interactional or emotional, support related to significantly lower odds of reincarceration and lower levels of substance use and criminal offending. Interaction terms revealed that the effect of instrumental family support is almost entirely independent, and not interactive, on each outcome. Conclusions: Family support appears to relate to prosocial reentry outcomes not because of emotional or interactional bonds, but because families provide for the basic needs of returning individuals. Instrumental familial support mechanisms such as providing housing and financial support appear more salient in promoting prosocial reentry outcomes than mechanisms of emotional or interactional support.

“…Largely defined as the receipt of tangible or intangible resources from social connections (Colvin, Cullen, & Vander Ven, 2002), social support is central to the reentry process. Existing research tends to highlight the importance of families (Bahr et al, 2010; Berg & Huebner, 2011; Mitchell, Spooner, Jia, & Zhang, 2016; Visher, 2004; Western, Braga, Davis, & Sirois, 2015) and peers (Bahr et al, 2010; Martinez & Abrams, 2013; Mowen & Boman, 2019) as sources of social support. These respective groups can provide important mechanisms of support including emotional (e.g., love and care) and instrumental (e.g., physical assistance such as housing and financial) support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Parole Officer as a Mechanism of Social Support During Reentry From Prison

Bares

2019

Crime & Delinquency

Self Cite

Emerging research has shown that the parole officer, much like friends and family, can be an important source of social support for returning persons. While this body of literature is growing, existing research provides little insight into understanding how specific types (e.g., interpersonal and/or professional) of parole officer support matter. Using panel data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, results of mixed-effects models demonstrate that greater levels of parole officer support are associated with decreased odds of reincarceration. Furthermore, parole officer professional support (e.g., providing correct information) exerts a more robust effect than interpersonal support (e.g., listening and caring). Findings suggest policy makers should consider programming to strengthen the professional relationship between the parole officer and returning person.