Ecological Context, Criminal Propensity, and Recidivism

• Author: Susan McNeeley
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016818776725
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Date: 01 December 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Ecological Context, Criminal

Propensity, and Recidivism:

An Examination of Moderating

Influences at the Census

Tract Level

Susan McNeeley

1

Abstract

This study examines whether the relationship between individual-level risk and recidivism varies

according to ecological context, measured at the census tract level. It is hypothesized that high-risk

offenders—as measured by Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk (MnSTARR) 2.0

and Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R)—will have elevated risk of recidivism when living in

disadvantaged neighborhoods and lower risk of recidivism when living in affluent neighborhoods.

These hypotheses are tested with hierarchical logistic models predicting rearrest and revocation for

a technical violation among a sample of approximately 3,000 offenders released from Minnesota

state prisons in 2009. Rearrest was positively related to neighborhood disadvantage and negatively

related to neighborhood affluence, while revocation was positively related to neighborhood

urbanism. Further, neighborhood disadvantage moderated the association between LSI-R and

rearrest; however, this interaction was not in the hypothesized direction. The results contradict

prior literature examining similar relationships at the county level.

Keywords

corrections, ecology and crime, quantitative methods

Research shows that recidivism is linked to many individual characteristics such as prior criminal

history, offense severity, drug use, education, and supervision type during parole (Benedict & Huff-

Corzine, 1997; Gainey, Payne, & O’Toole, 2000; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Spohn &

Holleran, 2002). In the past decade, scholars have also examined neighborhood influences on

recidivism. The results of this work suggest that recidivism is higher when offenders move into

disorganized neighborhoods (Clark, 2016; Hipp, Petersilia, & Turner, 2010; Kubrin & Stewart,

2006; McNeeley, 2017; Miller, Caplan, & Ostermann, 2016; Tillyer & Vose, 2011; Wallace,

1

Minnesota Department of Corrections, Saint Paul, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:

Susan McNeeley, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.

Email: susan.mcneeley@state.mn.us

Criminal Justice Review

2018, Vol. 43(4) 494-511

ª2018 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016818776725

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

2015; Wolff, Baglivio, Intravia, & Piquero, 2015) and that community affluence or service avail-

ability is protective against recidivism (Hipp et al., 2010; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006).

In addition to studying main ecological effects, prior research has examined whether individual

criminal propensity may contribute more greatly to recidivism in certain ecological contexts. There

is some evidence that the effects of individual characteristics (such as prior criminal history) have

stronger associations with recidivism when offenders move into disorganized areas (Wang, Hay,

Todak, & Bales, 2014). However, other studies examining these relationships have not found a

significant interaction (Tillyer & Vose, 2011). Notably, previous research on the interaction between

ecological context and individual risk factors has focused on the county level. However, because

criminal opportunity may vary more greatly across smaller geographical units, the effects of indi-

vidual characteristics on recidivism may be more dependent upon characteristics of neighborhoods

than on counties.

This study buildsupon prior literature by testing hypotheses based on this body of earlierwork with

a sample of offenders released from Minnesota state prisons. In addition, this study contributes to the

literatureby examining these relationshipsusing census tract, ratherthan county, as the unit of analysis.

This relationship is tested using twoindicators of individual criminalpropensity: the Level of Service

Inventory–Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) and the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing

RecidivismRisk (MnSTARR; Duwe,2014). This study also examineswhether neighborhoodaffluence

acts as a protective buffer by weakening the relationship between individual risk and recidivism.

Ecological Context and Recidivism

Social disorganization theory explains that communities characterized by poverty, residential

instability, and racial diversity suffer from higher crime rates (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Shaw and

McKay (1942) explained these community differences by combining elements from several crim-

inological traditions such as control, culture, and strain. Later interpretations of social disorganiza-

tion theory explain that crime flourishes in disorganized neighborhoods because community

members are less able to work together to reduce crime (Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson, Raudenbush,

& Earls, 1997). Community networks that protect against crime are made up of three types of social

ties: private ties between neighbors, public ties with community organizations such as religious

organizations or community centers, and parochial ties between the community and government

entities such as the police department or other government-funded resources (Bursik & Grasmick,

1993; Hunter, 1985). Neighborhood characteristics associated with social disorganization are related

to higher levels of neighborhood crime and victimization (Lowenkamp, Cullen, & Pratt, 2003; Pratt

& Cullen, 2005; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampson & Wooldredge, 1987).

More recently, scholars have also suggested that ecological context has a role in shaping reci-

divism among ex-prisoners (Clear, 2007). In addition to simply creating an environment conducive

to crime, as posited by social disorganization theory, neighborhood context can present particular

obstacles against successful reentry. Scholars explain that because disadvantaged communities often

lack features that promote desistance—such as employment prospects, conventional social n et-

works, and social services such as treatment programs—recidivism is more likely when offenders

move into these areas (Travis & Petersilia, 2001; Visher & Travis, 2003; Wright, Pratt, Lowenkamp,

& Latessa, 2013). For this reason, Kubrin and Stewart (2006) argued that ex-prisoners are partic-

ularly susceptible to neighborhood context because they must rely on social networks and commu-

nity resources for success after release from prison.

In line with this argument, several characteristics related to social disorganization—including

concentrated disadvantage (Clark, 2016; Hipp et al., 2010; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006; McNeeley,

2017; Wallace, 2015; Wolff et al., 2015), inequality (Wright, Tu ranovic, & Rodriguez, 2016),

disorder (Hipp et al., 2010), residential stability (Tillyer & Vose, 2011), and racial heterogeneity

McNeeley 495