Community Disadvantage, Prosocial Bonds, and Juvenile Reoffending

Date01 July 2017
AuthorJonathan Intravia,Kevin T. Wolff,Emily Pelletier,Michael T. Baglivio
DOI10.1177/1541204016639350
Published date01 July 2017
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Community Disadvantage,
Prosocial Bonds, and Juvenile
Reoffending: A Multilevel
Mediation Analysis
Jonathan Intravia
1
, Emily Pelletier
2
, Kevin T. Wolff
2
,
and Michael T. Baglivio
3
Abstract
Prior efforts suggest that adverse community contexts have the ability to impact juvenile recidivism.
However, far less research has examined the indirect effects of community disadvantage on delin-
quent youth reoffending. As a result, it remains unclear whether several theoretically relevant
mechanisms mediate the effects of disadvantage on continued delinquent behavior. Drawing from
theoretical models of contextual effects, as well as social control theory, the present study examines
whether prosocial bonds are salient mechanisms in the context–recidivism relationship. Using a
sample of over 20,000 juvenile offenders, our results indicate that both prosocial relationships and
prosocial activities partially mediate the effect of community disadvantage on youth reoffending.
Findings from the current study are discussed, along with policy implications and directions for
future research in this area.
Keywords
community disadvantage, prosocial bonds, juvenile recidivism, reoffending, mediation effects
Introduction
Juvenile recidivism is one of the most pressing issues in criminal justice research and remains a
pertinent subject in policy, practice, and resource decisions in states across the country. There is no
clear consensus on the national juvenile recidivism rate due to differences in the metric chosen to
measure reoffending across states and counties (e.g., rearrest, rereferral to court, reconviction,
1
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
2
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
3
G4S Youth Services, LLC, Tampa, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jonathan Intravia, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University, North Quad, 282, Muncie, IN 47306,
USA.
Email: jintravia@bsu.edu
Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice
2017, Vol. 15(3) 240-263
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204016639350
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
readjudication, and reincarceration); however, reports illustrate that reoffending rates can range
from 33%(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) to 85%(Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, & Caeti, 2005) based
on the location and length of reconviction examined (e.g., 12 months and 36 months). Although
there is no reliable national recidivism estimate concerning youth, there is a general agreement that
juvenile delinquency and violence remain a pervasive and important social problem (Estrada, 2001;
Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).
To date, prior studies have identified a number of individual-level correlates and risk factors that
influence youth recidivism (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Dembo et al., 1998; Duncan, Kennedy,
& Patrick, 1995; Myner, Cappelletty, & Perlm utter, 1998; Wiebush, Baird, Krisberg, & One k,
1995). For example, previous investigations have found that race, gender, age of onset, delinquent
peers, substance abuse, criminal history, mental health issues, and family problems are important
elements in predicting juvenile reoffending (for an excellent example of research devoted to the
factors associated with reoffending, see Grunwald, Lockwood, Harris, & Mennis, 2010,
pp. 10681069; Wolff, Baglivio, Intravia, & Piquero, 2015).
In addition to the individual-risk factors associated with juvenile reoffending, previous investi-
gations underscore that communities are fundamental in understanding and explaining recidivism
among adults (Chauhan, Reppucci, & Turkheimer, 2009; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006) and juveniles
(Baglivio, Wolff, Jackowski, & Greenwald, 2015; Grunwald et al., 2010; Wolff et al., 2015).
However, largely absent from this research has been an explicit focus on the intervening social
processes that may link community context with juveniles’ risk to reoffend. This gap in knowledge
is rather surprising, given that research on neighborhood effects has advocated for scholarship to
specify attention to the mechanisms through which neighborhoods exert their influence on individ-
uals’ perceptions, attitudes, and antisocial behavior (Harding, Gennetian, Winship, Sanbonmatsu, &
Kling, 2011; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson, 2012; Wyant,
2008). Indeed, a growing body of work illustrates that communities exert their influence on anti-
social behavior through individual-leve l mechanisms and processes (Bernburg & Thorlindsson,
2007; Cattarello, 2000; Ross & Mirowsky, 2009; Wyant, 2008). Consistent to these findings, there
is strong theoretical and empirical rationale, suggesting that strands of social control theory, such as
prosocial bonds, are promising mechanisms linking neighborhood context to the increased prob-
ability of juvenile recidivism. Communities characterized by disadvantage are less likely to instill
prosocial bonds to youth (Wilson, 1987), which are the binding ties to family, institutions, and
society that are important in establishing stakes in conformity and inhibit juveniles from engaging in
antisocial behavior, such as crime and deviance (Hirschi, 1969). Stated differently, disadvantaged
environments may increase the probability of juvenile recidivism indirectly by weakening youths’
bonds to conventional attachments and commitments.
Identifying whether prosocial bonds represent meaningful mechanisms through which adverse
communities influence juvenile recidivism is important for several reasons. First, previous studies
illustrate that adult criminal careers usually begin during adolescence (Loeber & Farrington, 2011;
Moffitt, 1993; Piquero, Hawkins, & Kazemian, 2012). Moreover, research on desistance highlights
that measures of social control (e.g., attachment and involvement) are salient components in dis-
continuing antisocial behavior. Thus, understanding the nature and quality of prosocial bonds
embedded within disadvantaged environments may have important implications for hindering crim-
inal offenses across the life course (Laub & Sampson, 1993). Second, since limited empirical
attention has been given to investigating the individual-level mechanisms linking community con-
text to juvenile reoffending, we know very little about whether prosocial bonds mediate this rela-
tionship. As a result, identifying the social processes that increase the probability of continued
offending has important implications for understanding the social and cultural foundations of youth
criminality more generally. Third, to the extent that prosocial bonds mediate the effect of commu-
nity disadvantage on juvenile recidivism, it becomes salient to develop specific policies and/or
Intravia et al. 241

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT