Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-8
The Effects of Social Disorganization Mechanisms: Examining the Influence of Community-Level Factors on Recidivism Across Various Correctional Programs
Prior research on various correctional sanctions has sought to explain variation in recidivism. The goal of the current study was to examine whether social disorganization mechanisms, such as residential mobility and family disruption, significantly influenced the recidivism rates of justice-involved individuals supervised under prison diversion programs, traditional community supervision programs, as well as individuals released from prison. Multilevel modeling of justice-involved individuals nested within 25 counties was used to examine the recidivism rates of 2,855 prison diversion cases, 2,278 traditional community supervision cases, and 497 incarceration cases. The results indicated that social disorganization mechanisms, specifically family disruption and residential mobility, significantly influenced the recidivism rates of justice-involved individuals supervised on all three types of correctional sanctions. Therefore, the results indicate that social disorganization mechanisms may partly explain the variation in recidivism rates of justice-involved individuals supervised under various correctional sanctions.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173–187.
2.
AntonowiczD. H.RossR. R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs for offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 97–104.
3.
AosS.MillerM.DrakeE. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 275.
4.
BarnettC.MenckenF. C. (2002). Social disorganization theory and the contextual nature of crime in nonmetropolitan counties. Rural Sociology, 67, 372–393.
5.
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.
6.
BomanI. V. J. H.MowenT. J. (2017). Building the ties that bind, breaking the ties that don’t: Family support, criminal peers, and reentry success. Criminology & Public Policy, 16, 753–774.
7.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Anderson.
8.
BoyleD. J.Ragusa-SalernoL. M.LantermanJ. L.MarcusA. F. (2013). An evaluation of day reporting centers for parolees: Outcomes of a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(1), 119–143.
9.
BronsonJ.CarsonE. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017 (NCJ 252156). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p17.pdf
10.
Bureau of Community Sanctions. (2017). Bureau of Community Sanctions 2017 annual report. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.
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.
12.
ClearT. R.RoseD. R.WaringE.ScullyK. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 33–64.
13.
CochranJ. C.MearsD. P.BalesW. D. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of correctional sanctions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 317–347.
14.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
15.
DeschenesE. P.TurnerS.PetersiliaJ. (1995). A dual experiment in intensive community supervision: Minnesota’s prison diversion and enhanced supervised release programs. The Prison Journal, 75, 330–356.
16.
DuroseM. R.CooperA. D.SnyderH. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17.
FultonB.LatessaE. J.StichmanA.TravisL. (1997). The state of ISP: Research and policy implications. Federal Probation, 61, 65–75.
18.
GendreauP.PaparozziM.LittleT.GoddardM. (1993). Does “punishing smarter” work? An assessment of the new generation of alternative sanctions in probation. Forum on Corrections Research, 5, 31–34.
19.
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(1), 214–236.
20.
HippJ. R.JannettaJ.ShahR.TurnerS. (2011). Parolees’ physical closeness to social services: A study of California parolees. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 102–129.
21.
HippJ. R.PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947–979.
22.
HyattJ. M.BarnesG. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38.
23.
KaebleD. (2018). Probation and parole in the United States, 2016 (NCJ 251148). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf
24.
KaebleD.CowhigM. (2018). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016 (NCJ 251211). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf
25.
KeelsM.DuncanG. J.DeLucaS.MendenhallR.RosenbaumJ. (2005). Fifteen years later: Can residential mobility programs provide a long-term escape from neighborhood segregation, crime, and poverty?Demography, 42(1), 51–73.
26.
KelsayJ. D.SilverI.NewsomeJ.LatessaE. J.HabermanC. P. (2019). The feasibility of implementing global position system monitoring with crime scene correlation in the state of Ohio. University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute.
27.
KronerD. G.TakahashiM. (2012). Every session counts: The differential impact of previous programmes and current programme dosage on offender recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 136–150.
28.
KubrinC. E.StewartE. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197.
29.
LatessaE.NewsomeJ.SilverI.SullivanC.D’AmatoC. (2018). Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Corrections Act prison diversion program. University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute.
LatessaE. J.LemkeR.MakariosM.SmithP. (2010). The creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Federal Probation, 74, 16–22.
32.
LatessaE. J.LovinsB. (2019). Corrections in the community (7th ed.). Routledge.
33.
LipseyM. W.ChapmanG. L.LandenbergerN. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 144–157.
34.
LongJ. S.SullivanC.WooldredgeJ.PompocoA.LugoM. (2019). Matching needs to services: Prison treatment program allocations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46, 674–696.
35.
LowenkampC. T.FloresA. W.HolsingerA. M.MakariosM. D.LatessaE. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter?Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375.
36.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594.
37.
LugoM.WooldredgeJ.PompocoA.SullivanC.LatessaE. J. (2019). Assessing the impact of unit management programs on institutional misconduct and prison “returns.”Justice Quarterly, 36(1), 59–92.
38.
MaltzM. (1984). Recidivism. Academic Press.
39.
MartinezD. J.AbramsL. S. (2013). Informal social support among returning young offenders: A metasynthesis of the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 169–190.
40.
MearsD. P.WangX.HayC.BalesW. D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46, 301–340.
41.
OsgoodD. W.ChambersJ. M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology, 38(1), 81–116.
42.
PadgettK. G.BalesW. D.BlombergT. G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61–91.
43.
PaparozziM. A.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445–466.
44.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
45.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. In TonryM. (ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 373–450). University of Chicago Press.
46.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.
47.
ReisigM. D.BalesW. D.HayC.WangX. (2007). The effect of racial inequality on black male recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 24, 408–434.
48.
RenzemaM.Mayo-WilsonE. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders?Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215–237.
49.
SampsonR. J.GrovesW. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.
50.
SampsonR. J.MorenoffJ. D.Gannon-RowleyT. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 443–478.
51.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
52.
SmithP.GendreauP.SwartzK. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4, 148–169.
53.
StahlerG. J.MennisJ.BelenkoS.WelshW. N.HillerM. L.ZajacG. (2013). Predicting recidivism for released state prison offenders: Examining the influence of individual and neighborhood characteristics and spatial contagion on the likelihood of reincarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 690–711.
54.
SteinerB.MakariosM. D.TravisL. F.III. (2015). Examining the effects of residential situations and residential mobility on offender recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 375–401.
55.
SuttlesG. (1968). The social order of the Slum. University of Chicago Press.
56.
TillyerM. S.VoseB. (2011). Social ecology, individual risk, and recidivism: A multilevel examination of main and moderating influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 452–459.
57.
TomehA. K. (1973). Formal voluntary organizations: Participation, correlates, and interrelationships. Sociological Inquiry, 43(3-4), 89–122.
WilsonD. B.BouffardL. A.MackenzieD. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 32, 174–204.
60.
WrightK. A.PrattT. C.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2012). The importance of ecological context for correctional rehabilitation programs: Understanding the micro- and macro-level dimensions of successful offender treatment. Justice Quarterly, 29, 775–798.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
