Neighborhood Risk Factors for Recidivism: For Whom do they Matter?

Abstract

Justice‐involved people vary substantially in their risk of reoffending. To date, recidivism prediction and prevention efforts have largely focused on individual‐level factors like antisocial traits. Although a growing body of research has examined the role of residential contexts in predicting reoffending, results have been equivocal. One reason for mixed results may be that an individual’s susceptibility to contextual influence depends upon his or her accumulated risk of reoffending. Based on a sample of 2218 people on probation in San Francisco, California, this study draws on observational and secondary data to test the hypothesis that individual risk moderates the effect of neighborhood factors on recidivism. Results from survival analyses indicate that individual risk interacts with neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and disorder—and these factors increase recidivism among people relatively low in individual risk, but not those at higher risk. This is consistent with the disadvantage saturation perspective, raising the possibility that some people classified as low risk might not recidivate but for placement in disadvantaged and disorderly neighborhoods. Ultimately, residential contexts “matter” for lower risk people and may be useful to consider in efforts to prevent recidivism.

Recidivism in Context: A Meta-Analysis of Neighborhood Concentrated Disadvantage and Repeat Offending

“…Although interest in the connection between concentrated disadvantage and recidivism has increased, no empirical consensus exists regarding this relationship. Narrative reviews of the literature indicate tests of the concentrated disadvantage-recidivism relationship yield mixed results and that when associations are statistically significant, they are typically small (Jacobs & Skeem, 2021). Although small effects at the neighborhood level are common, the small effects of concentrated disadvantage and mixed results may stem from several factors that could lead to variation and weaken effects across studies, including threats to measurement and internal validity, and/or other factors related to study design, sample, and measurement.…”

Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism Among Persons With Serious Psychiatric Diagnoses: Disentangling What Matters for Whom

“…We excluded current violence, as it was less a risk scale and more an indicator of the index offense, and because history of violence was substantively similar but more robust. Prior studies have indicated the overall validity of COMPAS in predicting recidivism ( 15 , 16 ), including in the study site ( 17 ), and support the predictive validity and reliability of the majority of the base scales ( 16 ). We conducted separate reliability and validity tests, finding that the majority of scales were internally consistent (see below) and showed signs of construct validity (i.e., all correlation coefficients were positive and, for the most part, correlated in theoretically anticipated directions).…”

Drivers of Probation Revocation in Pulaski County, Arkansas

“…Increased presence of social service providers was associated with decreased likelihood of recidivism, but this effect was diminished when potential demand outstripped service availability (Hipp et al, 2010). High levels of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage are consistently associated with higher likelihood of recidivism even after accounting for individual-level characteristics (Hipp et al, 2010;Jacobs & Skeem, 2020;kubrin & Stewart, 2006).…”

“…Compared to the US noninstitutionalized adult population, adults on probation are significantly more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities, less likely to have completed high school, and more likely to have very low annual incomes (Phelps, 2018). In addition to individual-level marginalization, many people on probation live in neighborhoods or communities characterized by concentrated disadvantage and inadequate social services (Cobbina et al, 2014; Jacobs & Skeem, 2020). In California, an analysis of neighborhood characteristics and parole violations found that clients who lived in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to abscond, but no more likely to commit other kinds of violations than clients from less disadvantaged neighborhoods (Grattet et al, 2009).…”