The Latino Paradox, the Racial Invariance Thesis, and Recidivism Among a Sample of Juvenile Offenders

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040221137295
• Author: Patrick G. Lowery,Dominic J. Zicari
• Date: 01 July 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2023, Vol. 21(3) 222–247

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040221137295

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

The Latino Paradox, the Racial

Invariance Thesis, and

Recidivism Among a Sample of

Juvenile Offenders

Patrick G. Lowery

1

and Dominic J. Zicari

1

Abstract

A plenitude of research on juvenile recidivism exists within the criminological literature, and some

scholars have suggested using the Latino paradox and racial invariance thesis to make sense of

racial and other disparities in recidivism. However, there is an extremely limited body of literature

that tests one or both of these theories on juvenile recidivism, and the research which does exist is

limited in its generalizability. To address this gap, we use statewide data from Virginia’s De-

partment of Juvenile Justice over 5 years to test the Latino paradox and racial invariance thesis.

Furthermore, given the nested nature of the data (juveniles within counties/independent cities),

we merged county-level data from the Virginia State Police and American Community Survey into

the data and used two-level hierarchical generalized linear models to analyze the data. Our

f‌indings largely supported the Latino paradox and offered some support for the second inter-

pretation of the racial invariance thesis. Implications for theory and recommendations for public

policy are discussed.

Keywords

recidivism, race, latino paradox, racial invariance thesis, criminological theory

Introduction

Researchers across several f‌ields have identif‌ied several predictors that contribute to recidivism

among juvenile offenders

1

, ranging from legal factors, such as prior incarceration and pre-

adjudication detention, to various extra-legal factors, including socioeconomic status, gender, and

race (Bryson & Peck, 2021;Cottle et al., 2001;Jacobs et al., 2020;Loughran et al., 2009;Leiber

et al., 2016;Mallett et al., 2013;Rodriguez, 2007;Wright et al., 2016). Several studies have also

1

Department of L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia,

VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Patrick G. Lowery, Department of L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth

University, Virginia, VA 23284, USA.

Email: pglowery@vcu.edu

established a connection between adult criminal behavior and frequent contact with the criminal

justice system as an adolescent (Dubow et al., 2014;Farrington et al., 2009;Rhoades et al., 2016).

Indeed, these f‌indings demonstrate the cyclical nature of incarceration and recidivism, especially

in the early stages of life. As such, developing a complete understanding of juvenile recidivism is

necessary for policymakers who wish to improve long-term outcomes for juveniles. Improving

long-term outcomes for juveniles is one of the reasons why scholars have identif‌ied juvenile

recidivism as an important area of study (Campbell et al., 2020;Cuevas et al., 2019;Papp et al.,

2019;Rodriguez, 2007;Wolff et al., 2018).

Many theoretical frameworks have been employed to help make sense of juvenile delinquency

and recidivism trends. These include racial threat and symbolic threat (Leiber et al., 2021;Thomas

et al., 2013), labeling theory (Liberman et al., 2014), procedural justice (Penner et al., 2014), and

the age-graded theory of informal social control (Novak & Fagan, 2022). While the racial in-

variance thesis and Latino paradox may explain differences or similarities with regards to racial

differences in adult offending (Burchf‌ield & Silver, 2013;Hernandez et al., 2018), these theories

are rarely used in the juvenile context. This is an important oversight, because prior research has

shown that certain recidivism risk factors affect Black, White, and Latino youth differently

(Barrett & Katsiyannis, 2015;Sitney et al., 2016). In other words, there appear to be aspects of

juvenile recidivism that may be better understood through the racial invariance thesis and Latino

paradox.

Wright et al. (2016) provide an instructive example of how the racial invariance thesis and the

Latino paradox may be used to guide an analysis of juvenile recidivism. As this appears to be one

of the only studies to do so, their contribution to the literature has been substantial. However, there

is still more work to be done. Although Wright et al. (2016) demonstrate support for the theories,

their focus on a single county raises questions about the generalizability of their f‌indings, and they

use a sample of only Black and White juveniles. They also failed to explore important macro-level

geographic predictors of recidivism, such as crime rate and percent urban (Feld, 1991;Powell

et al., 2021). Furthermore, debate over the most accurate interpretations of the racial invariance

thesis has led to ambiguities that complicate its application for both researchers and practitioners

(Painter-Davis & Harris, 2021;Steffensmeier et al., 2010;Torres, 2020). All of these consid-

erations indicate a need for more research in this area. The present study addresses this need by

analyzing more generalizable data with a wider variety of variables. Using a statewide dataset

from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) collected over a f‌ive-year period, the study

investigates whether predictors of juvenile recidivism affect Black, Latino, and White youth in

different ways.

Theoretical Framework

Racial Invariance Thesis

Sampson and Wilson (1995) f‌irst proposed the racial invariance thesis, offering two interpretations

of crime and inequality. The f‌irst interpretation contends that crime rates are primarily attributed to

high levels of concentrated poverty, residential mobility, population turnover, and family dis-

ruption, not necessarily due to the durable effects of racism and discrimination. In other words,

they expect crime to impact residents of these communities equally invariant of race. The second

interpretation of this thesis contends that only racial minorities living in areas of inequality would

the most negative effects of structural racism, whereas Whites living in areas marked by inequality

and all racial categories living in “middle class”environments would not be affect by criminogenic

pressures based class-based protections and/or Whiteness. From this perspective, Sampson and

Laub (1997) point out that certain historical processes—such as racially motivated segregation

Lowery and Zicari 223