Parolee Recidivism in California: The Effect of Neighborhood Context and Social Service Agency Characteristics*

Abstract

We studied a sample of reentering parolees in California in 2005–2006 to examine whether the social structural context of the census tract, as well as nearby tracts, along with the relative physical closeness of social service providers affects serious recidivism resulting in imprisonment. We found that a 1 standard deviation increase in the presence of nearby social service providers (within 2 miles) decreases the likelihood of recidivating 41 percent and that this protective effect was particularly strong for African American parolees. This protective effect was diminished by overtaxed services (as proxied by potential demand). We found that higher concentrated disadvantage and social disorder (as measured by bar and liquor store capacity) in the tract increases recidivism and that higher levels of disadvantage and disorder in nearby tracts increase recidivism. A 1 standard deviation increase in the concentrated disadvantage of the focal neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods increases the likelihood of recidivating by 26 percent. The findings suggest that the social context to which parolees return (both in their own neighborhood and in nearby neighborhoods), as well as the geographic accessibility of social service agencies, play important roles in their successful reintegration.

A Multilevel Examination of Risk/Need Change Scores, Community Context, and Successful Reentry of Committed Juvenile Offenders

“…Others have found higher concentrations of social disorder and disadvantage within the community and surrounding area increase the likelihood of parole revocation, though these effects can be mitigated by the presence of local social service agencies (Hipp, Petersilia, & Turner, 2010). Additionally, prior research demonstrates traditional disadvantage measures (poverty, female head of household, and high school graduation rates) are correlated with arrests of adults already under community supervision and explain the racial differences in adolescent violence (Bellair & Kowalski, 2011).…”

Coercive mobility and the impact of prison-cycling on communities

“…Although not direct tests of the coercive mobility thesis, John Hipp and colleagues have examined the effect that parolees returning to communities in California have on systems of private and parochial control in those communities and how the socialstructural context of the neighborhoods that parolees return to affect recidivism [47,48]. In the first of these studies, Hipp and Yates use panel data to test the hypothesis that returning parolees might bolster levels of informal social control by moderating the effect of the number of single-parent households on the crime rate.…”

Examining the Correlates of Sex Offender Residence Restriction Violation Rates

“…Poverty and disadvantage have been tied to the presence and quality of institutions in the community (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997; Wallace, Eason, and Lindsey, 2015). Social services are not readily available in urban, disadvantaged neighborhoods, and recent research suggests that parolees who live in areas with more social service providers are less likely to recidivate (Hipp, Petersilia, and Turner, 2010).…”

“…Poverty and disadvantage have been tied to the presence and quality of institutions in the community (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997; Wallace, Eason, and Lindsey, 2015). Social services are not readily available in urban, disadvantaged neighborhoods, and recent research suggests that parolees who live in areas with more social service providers are less likely to recidivate (Hipp, Petersilia, and Turner, 2010).Wallace and Papachristos (2014) find support for this relationship at the zip code level using data on health care organizations and rates of new crimes and technical violations (see also Wallace, 2015). Similarly, scholars suggest that in communities with high levels of unemployment, greater disadvantage, and low social control may breed environments conducive to crime and recidivism (Drakulich, Crutchfield, Matsueda, and Rose, 2012; Wang, Mears, and Bales, 2010).…”