Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32089563›Full record

ArticleCrime and delinquency2019

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

Thomas J Mowen, John H Boman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Crime and delinquency, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas J MowenBowling Green State University, OH, USA.
John H BomanBowling Green State University, OH, USA.

Funding

Computing and Data CoreP2CHD050959 · NICHD · BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BROWN, SUSAN L. · 2016 to 2021
$1.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050959
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior work on the process of reentry from prison has highlighted the pivotal role that family and peers play during reintegration. Families are traditionally understood as important protective mechanisms against recidivism whereas peers are typically viewed as primarily criminogenic. Yet, drawing from differential coercion and social support theory, family and peer relationships can both be supportive (and protect against recidivism) and coercive (and contribute to recidivism). Using four waves of data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, results of mixed-effects models demonstrate that family, but not peer, coercion relates to increased odds of reincarceration. Peer, but not family, social support relates to decreased odds of reincarceration. Findings suggest families are primarily criminogenic, whereas peers are protective during reentry.

Indexed as

differential coercion and social supportfamilypeersreentryreincarceration

Identifiers

PMID32089563
PMCPMC7034934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.