Building the Ties that Bind, Breaking the Ties that Don't

• Published date: 01 August 2017
• Author: John H. Boman,Thomas J. Mowen
• Date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12307

RESEARCH ARTICLE

SOCIAL TIES AND REENTRY

Building the Ties that Bind, Breaking the

Ties that Don’t

Family Support, Criminal Peers, and Reentry Success

John H. Boman, IV

Thomas J. Mowen

Bowling Green State University

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).

Keywords

peers, family, reentry, substance abuse, crime, recidivism

Direct correspondence to John H. Boman IV, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University,

223 Williams Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403 (e-mail: socdept@bgsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12307 C2017 American Society of Criminology 753

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 16 rIssue 3

Research Article Social Ties and Reentry

At a time when agencies are increasingly returning to parole (e.g., Horwitz, 2015),

it becomes increasingly critical to understand factors that impact success in postre-

lease supervision. Among several viewpoints that seek to aid in the understanding

of successful parole outcomes and lowered recidivism rates, one perspective—therisk–need–

responsivity (RNR) model—has received increasing attention and support in recent years

as a useful tool for offender rehabilitation (e.g., Ward, Melser, and Yates, 2007). Originally

developed and popularized by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge (1990), the RNR model has been

refined via the addition of several principles throughout the years. In its current form, the

RNR model contains principles that are centrally focused on beneficence, risk, response

needs (responsivity), assessment, and implementation. Each of these elements has received

empirical support in extant literature, and overall, the RNR model has greatly contributed

to criminologists’ understanding of elements that may contribute to successful offender

rehabilitation (e.g., Andrews and Bonta, 2006).

Despite the usefulness of this approach as a diagnostic and implementation tool, the

RNR has witnessed massive growth in the past years that has left researchers struggling to

“keep up.” Although there are notable exceptions (e.g., Andrews and Bonta, 2006; Andrews,

Bonta, and Wormith,2006), comprehensive research on how specific elements of the model

may affect one another is lacking as a result of the RNR’s overall complexity, especially in

regard to the “needs” aspects. By drawing on this observation, this study aims at improving

criminologists’ understanding of the interworkings of the “risk–need” arena of the RNR

perspective by focusing extensively on the roles of family and peers. In regard to the needs

principle, Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011: 738) identified the “Central Eight” risk–

need factors as “antisocial associates, antisocial cognitions, antisocial personality pattern[s],

history of antisocial behavior ...,substanceabuse, andcircumstances in the domains of

family ...,school ...,andleisure.”

By drawing on the “Central Eight,” the current study is primarily focused on how

two of these arenas of need—the domain of family and antisocial associates—may have

both independent and intertwined relationships in impacting both substance abuse and

crime. To investigate this issue, we implement a series of longitudinal multilevel models

using a large panel sample of serious, violent offenders who have been released to com-

munity supervision, and we locate this study on why the elements of family support and

antisocial associates should have independent and interactive effects on substance use and

crime.

Independence and Interdependence: Joint Role of Familyand Peers in RNR

The second component of the RNR model, that of risk–need, focuses on a multitude

of factors that impact desistence for individuals on parole, referred to, as highlighted, as

the “Central Eight” needs (see Andrews and Bonta, 1998). From the RNR perspective,

if these eight “needs” are adequately addressed, they work to bring on desistance. Never-

theless, if they are not addressed, they bring about recidivism. Although the applicability

754 Criminology & Public Policy