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

• Author: Craig J. R. Sewall,Laura Ellen Ashcraft,Leah A. Jacobs,Danielle Wallace,Barbara L. Folb
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548221076094
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2022, 783 –806.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221076094

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

783

RECIDIVISM IN CONTEXT

A Meta-Analysis of Neighborhood Concentrated

Disadvantage and Repeat Offending

LEAH A. JACOBS

LAURA ELLEN ASHCRAFT

CRAIG J. R. SEWALL

University of Pittsburgh

DANIELLE WALLACE

Arizona State University

BARBARA L. FOLB

University of Pittsburgh

This study meta-analytically examined the effect of macro-level concentrated disadvantage on individual-level recidivism.

Search results indicated research to date is designed to assess the incremental effect of concentrated disadvantage on recidi-

vism above other risk factors. Using a multilevel random effects model, we found the estimated incremental effect of con-

centrated disadvantage was nonsignificant (log odds ratio = 0.03, p = .15, k = 48). However, effects varied by recidivism

and offense type. Concentrated disadvantage does not add incremental utility when predicting general recidivism, but it does

add incremental utility when assessing arrests (especially drug arrests) and violent reconvictions. Although individual-level

risk factors and markers seem to explain most of the relationship between concentrated disadvantage and reoffending, con-

centrated disadvantage should not be summarily dismissed as irrelevant to recidivism. The overrepresentation of disadvan-

taged neighborhoods among the justice-involved—and the overrepresentation of the justice-involved in disadvantaged

neighborhoods—requires further research on the disadvantage–recidivism relationship.

Keywords: meta-analysis; recidivism; theory; community supervision; parole

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, scholars have questioned the reductionist nature of research that focuses

on individual-level risk factors for recidivism. Kubrin and Stewart (2006) lead this charge,

indicting prior scholarship for its “neglect of neighborhood” contexts in recidivism studies.

Their analysis of released prisoners in Oregon indicated that neighborhood-level factors

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We would like to thank the Center for Interventions to Enhance Community Health and

Robert Feldman at the University of Pittsburgh for their support and analytic guidance. We also thank Drs.

Elizabeth Gartner and Shanté Stuart McQueen of the University of Pittsburgh for their helpful reviews of early

drafts of the manuscript.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leah A. Jacobs, School

of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 2217D Cathedral of Learning, 4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA

15260; e-mail: leahjacobs@pitt.edu.

1076094CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221076094Criminal Justice and BehaviorJacobs et al. / Concentrated Disadvantage and Recidivism

review-article2022

784 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

predicted recidivism, above and beyond other established individual-level risk factors. The

study marked a turn toward the role of community context in the study of repeat offending

(Jacobs et al., 2020). Within this paradigm shift, no construct has received more attention

than concentrated disadvantage: the sociostructural and economic conditions that demar-

cate “truly disadvantaged” neighborhoods (Wilson, 2012). Concentrated disadvantage

occurs when a neighborhood and its residents experience multiple, simultaneous social and

structural ills, such as poverty and high rates of government assistance, joblessness, and

impoverished social institutions, such as insufficiently funded schools and limited access to

health care organizations or social services (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Wilson, 2012).

The concentration of these social and structural problems in a neighborhood seems to

impact all elements of social life for neighborhood residents, including crime and victimiza-

tion (Chamberlain & Hipp, 2015; Hsieh & Pugh, 1993; Pratt & Cullen, 2005; Simes, 2018),

gains to social and human capital (Wilson, 2012), educational attainment (Wodtke et al.,

2011), mobility (Clear et al., 2003; Hipp, Turner, & Jannetta, 2010), and the ability to avoid

recidivating (Chamberlain & Wallace, 2016; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006).

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 com-

mon, the small effects of concentrated disadvantage and mixed results may stem from sev-

eral 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.

Clarifying the relationship between concentrated disadvantage and recidivism has impor-

tant implications for criminal justice research and practice. If research indicates concen-

trated disadvantage causes criminal recidivism, it warrants intervention. If research indicates

concentrated disadvantage adds incremental utility to traditional, individual-level factors,

researchers should consider it when modeling the probability of recidivism. Such a finding

would also support the use of risk assessment instruments that incorporate dimensions of

concentrated disadvantage. Given these implications, this article seeks to clarify the con-

centrated disadvantage–recidivism relationship and to identify factors that may explain

variation in effects across studies.

CONCEPTUALIZING AND OPERATIONALIZING CONCENTRATED DISADVANTAGE

Criminologists and sociologists in the macrosocial tradition have had long-standing

interest in the relationship between neighborhood conditions and crime (see, for example,

Sampson et al., 2018; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Within this tradition, features of what

researchers now call concentrated disadvantage have been a focus. For example, Chicago

School sociologists of the early 20th century identified poverty and neighborhood immi-

grant population among key factors in shaping delinquent behavior among youth (e.g.,

Shaw & McKay, 1942). Their theory of social disorganization is now among the most com-

monly used theories in research on the concentrated disadvantage–recidivism relationship.

In the latter part of the 20th century, Wilson (2012) developed a theory of spatial mis-

match to explain the transformation of urban, Black communities from thriving, mixed-

class communities to high-poverty communities, with few social or economic resources and