This study examines the direct, reciprocal, and indirect effects of parolees on neighborhoods, including residential vacancies, property sales, public assistance, and crime. Cross-lagged autoregressive models are estimated using a unique data set containing annual neighborhood information on parolees, crime rates, and neighborhood structure in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, between 2000 and 2008. Results suggest parolees degrade neighborhood structure, and these effects are direct, reciprocal, and indirect. Understanding how the presence of parolees can contribute to changes in neighborhood processes linked to crime will broaden our understanding of the effects that parolees have on communities and highlight additional areas for intervention.
BellairP. E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35, 677-703.
2.
BellairP. E. (2000). Informal surveillance and street crime: A complex relationship. Criminology, 38, 137-170.
3.
BluestoneB. (1970). The tripartite economy: Labor markets and the working poor. Poverty and Human Resources, 5, 15-35.
4.
BoggessL. N.HippJ. R. (2010). Violent crime, residential instability and mobility: Does the relationship differ in minority neighborhoods?Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 351-370.
5.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.
6.
BramanD. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
BursikR. J.GrasmickH. J. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
8.
Center for Public Policy Research. (2007). State policies and procedures regarding “gate money.”Davis: University of California, Davis.
9.
ChamberlainA. W. (2012). Offender rehabilitation: Examining changes in inmate treatment characteristics, program participation, and institutional behavior. Justice Quarterly, 29, 183-228.
10.
ChamberlainA. W.BoggessL. N.PowersR. A. (2016). The impact of the spatial mismatch between parolee and employment locations on recidivism. Journal of Crime & Justice, 39, 398-420.
11.
ChamberlainA. W.WallaceD. (2016). Mass reentry, neighborhood context and recidivism: Examining how the distribution of parolees within and across neighborhoods impacts recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 33, 912-941. doi:10.1080/07418825.2015.1012095
12.
ClearT. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
ClearT. R.RoseD. A.RyderJ. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 335-351.
14.
ClearT. R.RoseD. A.WaringE.ScullyK. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20, 335-351.
15.
ClearT. R.WaringE.ScullyK. (2005). Communities and reentry: Concentrated reentry cycling. In TravisJ.VisherC. A. (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 179-208). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
CoultonC.PandeyS.ChowJ. (1990). Concentration of poverty and the changing ecology of low-income, urban neighbhroods: An analysis of the Cleveland area. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 26, 5-16.
17.
CrowderK. D. (2001). Racial stratification in the actuation of mobility expectations: Microlevel impacts of racially restrictive housing markets. Social Forces, 79, 1377-1396.
18.
CullenJ. B.LevittS. D. (1999). Crime, urban flight, and the consequences for cities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 159-169.
19.
CurranP. J.BollenK. A. (2001). The best of both worlds: Combining autoregressive and latent curve models. In CollinsL. M.SayerA. G. (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change: Decade of behavior (pp. 107-135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
DeaneG. D. (1990). Mobility and adjustments: Paths to the resolution of residential stress. Demography, 27, 65-79.
21.
DhondtG. (2012). The bluntness of incarceration: Crime and punishment in Tallahassee neighborhoods, 1995 to 2002. Crime, Law and Social Change, 57, 521-538.
22.
DrakulichK. M.CrutchfieldR. D.MatsuedaR. L.RoseK. (2012). Instability, informal control, and criminogenic situations: Community effects of returning prisoners. Crime, Law and Social Change, 57, 493-519.
23.
DuganL. (1999). The effect of criminal victimization on a household’s moving decision. Criminology, 37, 903-930.
24.
DuroseM. R.CooperA. D.SnyderH. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005-2010 (Special Report, NCJ 244205). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
25.
FaganJ.WestV.HollandJ. (2003). Reciprocal Effects of Crime and Incarceration in New York City Neighborhoods. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1551-1602.
26.
GrinsteadO.FaigelesB.BancroftC.BarryZ. (2001). The financial costs of maintaining relationships with incarcerated African American men: A survey of women prison visitors. Journal of African American Men, 6, 59-69.
27.
HardingD. J.MorenoffJ. D.HerbertC. W. (2013). Home is hard to find: Neighborhoods, institutions, and the residential trajectories of returning prisoners. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647, 214-236.
28.
HarrisD. R. (2001). Why Are Whites and Blacks Averse to Black Neighbors?Social Science Research, 30, 100-116.
29.
HarrisA.EvansH.BeckettK. (2010). Drawing blood from stones: Legal debt and social inequality in the contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1753-1799.
30.
HippJ. R. (2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review, 72, 659-680.
31.
HippJ. R. (2010). A dynamic view of neighborhoods: The reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics. Social Problems, 57, 205-230.
32.
HippJ. R. (2011). Violent crime, mobility decisions, and neighborhood racial/ethnic transition. Social Problems, 58, 410-432.
33.
HippJ. R.TitaG. E.GreenbaumR. T. (2009). Drive-bys and trade-ups: Examining the directionality of the crime and residential instability relationship. Social Forces, 87, 1777-1812.
34.
HippJ. R.PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (2010). Parolee Recidivism in California: The Effect of Neighborhood Context and Social Service Agency Characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947-979.
35.
HippJ. R.YatesD. K. (2009). Do returning parolees affect neighborhood crime: A case study of Sacramento. Criminology, 47, 619-656.
36.
HoyleR. H.KennyD. A. (1999). Statistical power and tests of mediation. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Newbury Park: Sage.
37.
JargowskyP. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios and the American City. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
38.
KovandzicT. V.MarvellT. B.VieraitisL. M.MoodyC. E. (2004). When prisoners get out: The impact of prison releases on homicide rates, 1975-1999. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 212-228.
39.
KrisbergB.Taylor-NicholsonE. (2011). Realignment: A bold new ear in California corrections. Berkeley: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley.
40.
KrivoL. J.PetersonR. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619-648.
41.
KubrinC. E.StewartE. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44, 165-197.
42.
La VigneN. G.ParthasarathyB. (2005). Prisoner reentry and residential mobility. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
43.
La VigneN. G.ThompsonG. L.VisherC.KachnowskiV.TravisJ. (2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in Ohio. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
44.
LynchJ. P.SabolW. J. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
45.
MasseyD.DentonN. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
MietheTerance D.MeierRobert F. (1994) Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations. Albany: State University of New York Press.
47.
MorenoffJ. D.SampsonR. J. (1997). Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970-1990. Social Forces, 76, 31-64.
48.
PagerD. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937-975.
49.
PioreM. J. (1970). The dual labor market: Theory and implications. In BeerS. H.BarringerR. E. (Eds.), The State of the Poor (pp. 55-59). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
50.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373-450.
51.
PritikinM. H. (2008). Is prison increasing crime?Wisconsin Law Review, 2008, 1049-1108.
52.
PyleG. F. (1974). The Spatial Dynamics of Crime (Vol. 159). Chicago, IL: Department of Geography, University of Chicago.
53.
RaphaelS.StollM. A. (2004). The effect of prison releases on regional crime rates. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 5, 207-255.
54.
ReynaldD. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47, 358-390.
55.
RomanC. G.KaneM. J.GiridharadasR. (2006). The Housing Landscape for Returning Prisoners in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
56.
RoseD. R.ClearT. R. (2003). Incarceration, reentry, and social capital: Social networks in the balance. In TravisJ.WaulM. (Eds.), Prisoners Once Removed (pp. 313-341). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
57.
RoseD. R.ClearT. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441-479.
58.
RoseD. R.ClearT. R.RyderJ. A. (2001). Addressing the unintended consequences of incarceration through community-oriented services at the neighborhood. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(3), 62-71.
59.
RosenfeldRichardWallmanJoelFornangoRobert. (2005). The contribution of ex-prisoners to crime rates. In TravisJ.VisherChristy A. (Eds.), Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SampsonR. J.GrovesW. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
61.
SampsonR. J.MorenoffJ. D. (2006). Durable inequality: Spatial dynamics, social processes, and the persistence of poverty in Chicago neighborhoods. In BowlesS.DurlaufS. N.HoffK. (Eds.), Poverty traps (pp. 176-203). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62.
SampsonR. J.RaudenbushS. W.EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
63.
SchlueterE.SchmidtP.WagnerU. (2008). Disentangling the causal relations of perceived group threat and outgroup derogation: Cross-national evidence from German and Russian panel surveys. European Sociological Review, 24, 567-581.
64.
SchwartzA. E.SusinS.VoicuI. (2003). Has falling crime driven New York City’s real estate boom?Journal of Housing Research, 14, 1-35.
65.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66.
SkoganW. (1990). Disorder and decline. New York, NY: Free Press.
67.
SlocumL. A.RengifoA. F.ChoiT.HerrmannC. R. (2013). The elusive relationship between community organizations and crime: An assessment across disadvantaged areas of the south Bronx. Criminology, 51, 167-216.
68.
SouthS. J.CrowderK. D. (1998). Leaving the ’hood: Residential mobility between black, white, and integrated neighborhoods. American Sociological Review, 63, 17-26.
69.
SpeareA.KobrinF.KingkadeW. (1982). The influence of socioeconomic bonds and satisfaction on interstate migration. Social Forces, 61, 551-574.
70.
SpelmanW. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime?Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 481-495.
71.
SugieN. (2012). Punishment and welfare: Paternal incarceration and families’ receipt of public assistance. Social Problems, 90, 1403-1427.
72.
TravisJ. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
73.
TurnerS. F.ChamberlainA. W.JannettaJ.HessJ. (2015). Does GPS improve recidivism among high risk sex offenders? Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for high risk sex offender parolees. Victims & Offenders, 10, 1-28.
74.
VisherC.Debus-SherrillS. A.YahnerJ. (2011). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28, 698-718.
75.
VisherC.FarrellJ. (2005). Chicago communities and prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
