Although scholars have theorized that nonprofit organizations (NPO) contribute to social control in communities, the relationship between NPO and rates of misconduct on the part of certain at-risk groups has received little empirical attention. The current study extends the literature by adopting a place-based approach to understanding differences in probationer misconduct that highlights the role of NPO in communities. Using longitudinal data from New York State counties, we analyze the linear and nonlinear influences that different NPO have on rearrest rates of probationers. Whereas most criminological theories suggest that NPO have a linear and salutary influence, we find evidence of a more nuanced process: NPO unexpectedly show evidence of exerting both salutary and deleterious influences on probationer outcomes.
BeyerleinK.HippJ. R. (2005). Social capital, too much of a good thing? American religious traditions and community crime. Social Forces, 84, 995-1013.
2.
BoboL.HutchingsV. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61, 951-972.
3.
BrankE.LaneJ.TurnerS.FainT.SehgalA. (2008). An experimental juvenile probation program: Effects on parent and peer relationships. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 193-224.
4.
BursikR. J.GrasmickH. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
5.
ClearT. (2005). Places not cases? Re-thinking the probation focus. The Howard Journal, 44, 172-184.
6.
ClearT.KarpD. R. (1999). The community justice ideal: Preventing crime and achieving justice. Boulder, CO: Westview.
7.
FinkelS. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
GerrardM. (1994). Whose backyard, whose risk? Fear and fairness in toxic and nuclear waste sitting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
GroffE. R.LockwoodB. (2014). Criminogenic facilities and crime across street segments in Philadelphia uncovering evidence about the spatial extent of facility influence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 51, 277-314.
10.
HeimerK.JohnsonK. R.LangJ. B.RengifoA. F.StemenD. (2012). Race and women’s imprisonment: Poverty, African American presence, and social welfare. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 219-244.
11.
HippJ. R.PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947-979.
12.
HippJ. R.YatesD. K. (2009). Do returning parolees affect neighborhood crime? A case study of Sacramento. Criminology, 47, 619-656.
13.
HorneyJ.OsgoodW.MarshallI. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Association, 60, 655-673.
14.
JacobyA. (2017). Social service organizations, discretionary funding, and neighborhood crime rates. Crime & Delinquency.
15.
KaebleD.GlazeL. (2016). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16.
KennedyP. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
KruttschnittC.UggenC.SheltonK. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17, 61-87.
18.
KubrinC. E.HippJ. R. (2016). Do fringe banks create fringe neighborhoods? Examining the spatial relationship between fringe banking and neighborhood crime Rates. Justice Quarterly, 33, 755-784.
19.
KubrinC. E.SquiresG. D.GravesS. M.OuseyG. C. (2011). Does fringe banking exacerbate neighborhood crime rates?Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 437-466.
20.
KubrinC. E.WoJ. C. (2015). Social disorganization theory’s greatest challenge: Linking structural characteristics to crime in socially disorganized communities. In PiqueroA. R. (Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 121-136). Malden, MA: John Wiley.
21.
KurtzE. M.KoonsB. A.TaylorR. B. (1998). Land use, physical deterioration, resident-based control, and calls for service on urban streetblocks. Justice Quarterly, 15, 121-149.
22.
LanganP. A.CunnifM. A. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation, 1986-1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
23.
MacKenzieD.De LiS. (2002). The impact of formal and informal social control on the criminal activities of probationers. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 39, 243-276.
24.
McCordE. S.RatcliffeJ. H.GarciaR. M.TaylorR. B. (2007). Nonresidential crime attractors and generators elevate perceived neighborhood crime and incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 44, 295-320.
25.
McGarryP.YaroniA.AddieS. (2014). Adult probation and neighborhood opportunity network initiative. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
26.
MooreM. D.ReckerN. L. (2013). Social capital, type of crime, and social control. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 728-747.
27.
MorenoffJ. D.SampsonR. J.RaudenbushS. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-559.
PetersiliaJ. (1997). Probation in the United States. Crime and Justice, 22, 149-200.
30.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 87-111.
31.
PetersonR. D.KrivoL. J.HarrisM. A. (2000). Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime: Do local institutions matter?Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37, 31-63.
32.
RabeB. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous waste sitting in Canada and the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
33.
RengertG. F.RatcliffeJ. H.ChakravortyS. (2005). Policing illegal drug markets: Geographic approaches to crime reduction. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
34.
RosenfeldR.MessnerS. F.BaumerE. P. (2001). Social capital and homicide. Social Forces, 80, 283-309.
35.
SampsonR. J. (2012). Great American City: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
SampsonR. J.GrovesW. B. (1989). Community structure and crime—Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
37.
SharkeyP.Torrats-EspinosaG.TakyarD. (2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82, 1214-1240.
38.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
39.
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.
40.
SlovicP.FiscchoffB.LichternsetinS. (1981). Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 376, 17-34.
41.
TaniguchiT. A.SalvatoreC. (2012). Exploring the relationship between drug and alcohol treatment facilities and violent and property crime: A socioeconomic contingent relationship. Security Journal, 25, 95-115.
42.
TaylorR. B.GottfredsonS. D.BrowerS. (1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 21, 303-331.
43.
WallaceD.PapachristosA. V. (2014). Recidivism and the availability of health care organizations. Justice Quarterly, 31, 588-608.
44.
WoJ. C. (2016). Community context of crime: A longitudinal examination of the effects of local institutions on neighborhood crime. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1286-1312.
45.
WoJ. C. (2018). Understanding the density of nonprofit organizations across Los Angeles neighborhoods: Does concentrated disadvantage and violent crime matter?Social Science Research, 71, 56-71.
46.
WoJ. C.HippJ. R.BoessenA. (2016). Voluntary organizations and neighborhood crime: A dynamic perspective. Criminology, 54, 212-241.
