Tipping the Scales of Justice

• Author: Brian C. Renauer,Bill Feyerherm,Paul Bellatty,Tom O’Connor,Wm. Scott Cunningham
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403406286488
• Published date: 01 September 2006
• Date: 01 September 2006
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0887403406286488Criminal Justice Policy ReviewRenaueret al. / Tipping the Scales

Tipping the Scales of Justice

The Effect of Overincarceration on

Neighborhood Violence

Brian C. Renauer

Wm. Scott Cunningham

Bill Feyerherm

Portland State University, OR

Tom O’Connor

Paul Bellatty

Oregon Department of Corrections, Salem

Rose and Clear propose that neighborhood incarceration, after a tipping-point threshold,

can disrupt informal social-control mechanisms in neighborhoods producing more crime

and violence. They hypothesize that the incarceration-crime relationship at a neighbor-

hood level is curvilinear.Using suggestions from Hannon and Knapp, the authors assess

curvilinearity in the incarceration-crime relationship by comparing results across three

different estimation techniques (ordinary least squares, heteroscedasticity consistent

covariance matrix [HCCM] for small samples, called HC3, negative binomial). Data

from 95 Portland, Oregon, neighborhoods are used for the study.The results are generally

consistent and supportive of Rose and Clear’scurvilinearity hypothesis of neighborhood

incarceration but only for explanations of violent crime, not property crime. Moderate

levels of neighborhood incarceration are related to significant violent crime rate

decreases, and high levels of neighborhood incarceration are significantly related to vio-

lent crime rate increases. However, models were sensitive to estimation technique and

outlying observations. Policy considerations related to concentrated neighborhood

incarceration are discussed.

Keywords: incarceration; neighborhoods; prisoner reentry

Neighborhood Incarceration Tipping Point and Violent Crime

Imprisoning persons convicted of crimes is one of the oldest and most accepted

policies for improving public safety. Lynchand Sabol (2004a), however, pointed out

two competing theories of the effects of incarceration on communities (see alsoSabol

& Lynch, 2003). Traditional incarceration theory assumes that imprisonment reduces

crime through incapacitation and deterrence (Levitt, 1996; Lynch & Sabol, 2004a;

Marvel & Moody, 1994; Nagin, 1998). Incarceration may restore informal social-

362

Criminal Justice

Policy Review

Volume 17 Number 3

September 2006 362-379

© 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/0887403406286488

http://cjp.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

control processes through the removal of offenders from communities and families,

thus improving public safety and livability (Lynch & Sabol, 2004a).

An alternative theoretical modelproposed by Rose and Clear (1998) explains how

incarceration can disrupt informal social-control mechanisms and human and social

capital, hence creating criminogenic conditions. Rose and Clear used Bursik and

Grasmick’s (1993) systemic reformulation of social disorganization theory as their

theoretical foundation. Under the systemic model of crime, incarceration of neighbor-

hood residents is a form of public or outside social control exerted on neighborhoods.

Rose and Clear proposed that high levels of incarceration may disrupt the internal and

informal bases of neighborhood social control, which are also integral to explaining

neighborhood crime according to the systemic model of crime. This disrupting effect

occurs at the highest levels of neighborhood incarceration, thus Rose and Clear pre-

dicted an incarceration-crime relationship that is curvilinear. Indeed, the recognition

of conflict rather than congruence between public or government social control and

more informal parochial and private social controls has been noted by many others

including Comer (1985), Black (1976), Hunter (1985), and Spergel (1976) (Duffee,

Fluellen, & Renauer, 2000; Rose & Clear, 1998).

The purpose of the current research is to examine whether incarceration of neigh-

borhood residents has a negative or positiveinfluence on neighborhood crime.Specif-

ically, we assessed whether there is a curvilinear relationship between neighborhood

incarceration and neighborhood crime as hypothesized by Rose and Clear (1998).

Consideration of the appropriate methodology for testing curvilinear relationships is

emphasized as is the consistency of findings across estimations techniques and

models.

The Disruptive Effects of Incarceration

The removal of neighborhood residents through state imprisonment and their

potential return on release is described by Clear, Rose, Waring,and Scully (2003) as a

form of “coercive mobility” of a neighborhood population. This type of residential

mobility is not entirely disruptive to neighborhood social control. According to Rose

and Clear (1998), the disorganizing effect of coercive mobility occurs after a certain

“tipping point” in neighborhood incarceration rates is reached (Clear et al., 2003,

p. 34). Rose and Clear cited numerous studies to illustrate some of theunintended and

destabilizing consequences of incarceration for families, child development, adult

supervision of youth, neighborhood commerce, social and human capitalin neighbor-

hoods, and neighborhood political capital. At small and moderate levels, these poten-

tial destabilizing outcomes of incarceration can be absorbed by neighborhoods, espe-

cially neighborhoods with sound informal social controls, social capital, and

economic stability. Thus, with moderate levelsof neighborhood incarceration, neigh-

borhood crime rates should decline (Clear et al., 2003).1Higher levels of neighbor-

hood incarceration, beyond the tipping point, begin to disrupt the “familial, economic,

Renauer et al. / Tipping the Scales 363