Ecologies of juvenile reoffending: A systematic review of risk factors
Introduction
Repeat offending among justice-involved youth is a sizable problem with public safety consequences. Nearly half of youth adjudicated for a delinquent or criminal act will reoffend, and those who continue involvement in crime as adults ultimately account for the majority of all crime (Bullis, Yovanoff, Mueller, & Havel, 2002; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Yet, not all youth reoffend. Identifying differences between those who do and do not reoffend—and related risk and protective factors for reoffending—is one of criminology's central aims.
Researchers have identified risk and protective factors for reoffending to inform risk assessment instruments and, hypothetically, to guide recidivism reduction interventions (Kennealy, Skeem, & Hernandez, 2017; Singh et al., 2014). Much of this work has focused on individual (e.g., anti-social cognitions) and relational (e.g., peer associations) risk factors for reoffending. Despite progress in these areas, the ability to predict and prevent reoffending remains limited (Schwalbe, 2007). If the individual and relational factors examined to date only partially explain reoffending among youth, what other factors may have predictive utility? Social structural, economic, and systemic ecological factors, also referred to as “macro,” “environmental,” or “neighborhood” effects, represent other potential sources of risk for reoffending.
In the past decade, numerous studies of reoffending among youth have emerged as part of a broader “cottage industry” (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002) in ecologically-oriented research. In the wake of this ecological turn, consensus has yet to be reached regarding what ecological factors matter for reoffending, how they unfold to affect reoffending, or for whom they matter most. This paper takes a step toward filling this gap by systematically reviewing research on the ecology-reoffending relationship among youth, and qualitatively and quantitatively assessing the effects of ecological factors on youth reoffending.
As we suggest above, research on risk factors for juvenile reoffending has been dominated by a focus on individual and relational characteristics. Several reviews provide useful summaries of this literature (see Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Dowden & Brown, 2002; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Piquero, Jennings, Diamond, & Reingle, 2015; Wibbelink, Hoeve, Stams, & Oort, 2017). Generally, age, gender, and race predict reoffending (Piquero et al., 2015), with younger, male, and Black youth being more likely to reoffend– though there is some evidence that the effect of race disappears when conditioned on socioeconomic status (Cottle et al., 2001). Reoffending is also often, though not always, predicted by delinquent history, negative use of leisure time, family and parenting factors, association with anti-social peers, substance use, neurodevelopmental factors, and mental health problems (c.f. internalizing and severe disorders; Basto-Pereira, Começanha, Ribeiro, & Maia, 2015; Cottle et al., 2001; Wibbelink et al., 2017). The relevance of some of these factors to reoffending also varies along demographic dimensions (Basto-Pereira et al., 2015).
Prior research on individual and social factors highlights some important indicators for risk prediction and prevention. Yet, a systematic review of standardized risk assessment tools (k = 28; Schwalbe, 2007) indicated many instruments informed by this literature are marginally more accurate in predicting reoffending than flipping a coin (mean AUC = 0.64, where AUC = 0.50 indicates the instrument is as likely to incorrectly predict recidivism as it is to correctly predict reoffending). In the absence of tools with greater predictive utility and interventions that target known risk factors, repeat offending among youth continues.
In 1942, Ernest Burgess wrote, “If we wish to reduce delinquency, we must… think of its causes more in terms of the community and less in terms of the individual” (in Shaw & McKay, 1942, pp. xiii). Nearly 80 years after Burgess wrote about the relationship between residential context and delinquency, scholars of juvenile reoffending are heeding Burgess' words. This ecological turn, or return, is evidenced by a significant increase in the number of publications focused on ecological factors for juvenile reoffending (see Fig. 1). Contemporary research on the ecology-reoffending relationship is primarily built upon prior research on the ecology-crime relationship and the ecology-delinquency relationship. We describe these two areas of research below, highlighting the ways in which their theoretical bases and empirical findings may and may not support the ecology-reoffending relationship. Where possible, we turn to prior systematic and narrative reviews, which offer important distillations of these foundational bodies of research but have yet to be completed for research focused on the ecology-reoffending relationship.
Research on the ecology-crime relationship has long established that crime and delinquency rates are elevated in communities that share certain social and structural features (Pratt & Cullen, 2005; Sampson et al., 2002). Theories of social disorganization and, relatedly social capital, cohesion, and control, are among those most popular for explaining the relationship between community features and crime and delinquency rates. In the most basic sense, theorists in this vain argue that disorganized communities reflect the intersection of poor economic conditions, residential turnover, and elements of demographic and family composition (e.g., ethnoracial diversity and concentration, concentration of youth, female-headed households; e.g., Sampson, 1986a; Shaw & McKay, 1942). When these factors combine, their “concentration effects” produce crime and other negative social outcomes (Wilson, 2012). Social capital, collective efficacy, and control theorists (Bursik Jr & Grasmick, 1993; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), argue that the relationship between these social and structural features and crime rates are at least in part explained by related reductions in formal and informal social capital and control, which are necessary to collectively control behavior and guard against the occurrence of crime (see also Wilson, 2012). This latter group of theories, with their ability to connect macro- and micro-forces to crime and delinquency, have increasingly garnered attention (see, e.g., Groff, 2015; Sampson, 2012; Warner, 2014).
Empirical research provides support for the ability of social disorganization-related theories to explain variation in crime and delinquency rates between communities, while some research indicates alternative theories may also be relevant. In a meta-analysis of “macro” predictors of crime (k = 216), Pratt and Cullen (2005) found neighborhoods with higher crime rates tended to be distinct in dimensions relevant to social disorganization and social capital. Specifically, high crime neighborhoods were high in concentrated disadvantage (poverty, racial composition, unemployment, and family disruption) and residential mobility, and tended to be low in collective efficacy and social ties (measures of social interactions and strength of social ties; e.g., social capital; mean effect sizes = 0.17–0.41). Pratt and Cullen also found unsupervised local peer groups and inequality (e.g., the Gini Index or measures of group differences in socioeconomic status) were relatively strong predictors of crime rates, indicating theories other than social disorganization, such as theories of relative deprivation and/or contagion (see Dishion & Tipsord, 2011; Odgers, 2015), may also help explain variation in crime rates between communities.
Beyond research on macro-level causes of community crime and delinquency rates, research on the ecology-reoffending relationship is informed by a corpus of scholarship on the cross-level effects of ecological factors on individual-level outcomes, including delinquency. In a review of 40 observational studies, Sampson et al. (2002) found that, much like crime and delinquency rates, indicators of youth wellbeing were predicted by structural factors of concentrated disadvantage and residential mobility, as well as social ties and norms (including social cohesion, social control, and surveillance), institutional resources (e.g., presence of schools, social, or health services), and routine activities (i.e., everyday spaces that present opportunities for delinquency, like transportation nodes; see Felson, 2013). Three studies included in Sampson et al.'s review focused on delinquency. Two of these studies found neighborhood disadvantage was associated with delinquency among some youth, depending on age and individual risk factors (see Seidman et al., 1998; Wikström & Loeber, 2000). The third study found neighborhood conditions were not associated with delinquency, but that more “proximal” social factors (e.g., exposure to delinquent peers) were highly predictive (see Lanctot & Smith, 2001).
In addition to these observational studies, several papers from the Moving to Opportunities experiment (MtO; see Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011) have focused on delinquency. In MtO, low income families were randomized to one of three groups: 1) those who received a housing voucher for use in a low-poverty neighborhood, 2) those who received a housing voucher for use in any neighborhood, and 3) those who stayed in their current public housing (the control). For behavioral measures of delinquency (parent-reported or self-reported delinquent behavior), early comparisons between those who relocated to less disadvantaged communities and control group members were mixed. Some MtO analyses indicated moving to a less disadvantaged context reduced boys' behavior problems, and others found no evidence of effects on behavior problems (Katz, Kling, & Liebman, 2001; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Later results indicated movement to less disadvantaged contexts increased delinquency among boys who moved as teens, and produced no statistically significant effects for girls or younger boys (Schmidt, Krohn, & Osypuk, 2018). For administrative measures of delinquency (i.e., arrests), girls in MtO who moved to less disadvantaged contexts had fewer arrests for property and violent crimes compared to control group members, while their male counterparts had reductions in arrests for violent crimes but increased arrests for property crimes (Sciandra et al., 2013; see also Kling, Ludwig, & Katz, 2005; Ludwig, Duncan, & Hirschfield, 2001a). These effects attenuated over time, along with changes in neighborhood conditions.
Together, macro-level research on crime and cross-level research on delinquency provides some support for the relationship between ecological factors and reoffending, and some insight as to what ecological factors may matter and how. Ecological factors, especially those related to disadvantage, residential instability, social capital and cohesion, the presence of unsupervised peer groups, and inequality, differentiate crime rates across communities. In some cases, these ecological factors also predict individual level delinquency. Studies on the ecology-delinquency relationship also suggest ecological effects unfold through more proximal forces, interact with age and gender (and related differences in social networks and individual experiences), and are contemporaneous (i.e., as residential contexts change, delinquency risk changes; effects are situational, and not the result of an indelible effect made during a specific developmental period; Sciandra et al., 2013). They also suggest that effects may vary depending on how delinquency is operationalized (i.e., as self-reported or observed behavior verses administratively recorded criminal justice outcome, like arrest).
Though macro-level research on crime rates and cross-level research on delinquency have offered these important insights, their application to research on reoffending also faces potential limitations. First, assuming theory and evidence from research on the ecology-crime relationship can be directly applied to the individual behavior of youth amounts to the ecological fallacy (i.e., inferring delinquent behavior among residents from their community's crime and delinquency rates). Second, research on the ecology-delinquency relationship may differentiate delinquent behavior across the general population but not within a sub-population of previously adjudicated youth. Ecological factors have heterogeneous effects. Thus, it is possible, for example, that ecological factors have stronger effects on offending or reoffending among those who possess fewer or weaker individual risk factors, while those who possess more or stronger individual risk factors may offend or reoffend regardless of residential context (see Wikström & Loeber, 2000). By focusing on youth from the general population or from low-income families, estimates of ecological effects on delinquency from the studies described above may be greater than the effects of ecological factors on reoffending for justice-involved youth, who likely possess more (or more significant) individual and relational risk factors by virtue of their prior system involvement. In the most basic sense, questions of whether or how ecological factors predict crime rates or delinquency in the general population, are distinct from questions of whether or how ecological factors predict reoffending among justice involved youth. In light of these distinctions, understanding and strengthening research on the ecology-reoffending relationship requires an independent synthesis of evidence.
Beyond a dedicated focus, distilling research on ecological risk factors for reoffending requires attention to the methodological specificities of both risk factor research and research that tests relationships across units of analysis (i.e., from macro factor to individual behavior). The traditional risk factor framework, proposed by Kraemer et al. (1997) and adapted to offending by Murray, Farrington, and Eisner (2009) (see also Monahan & Skeem, 2013), defines risk factors as correlates that temporally precede outcomes and defines causal risk factors as factors that vary and alter outcomes as a result of their variation. While experiments are well-suited to establishing causality, well-designed observational studies may closely approximate their findings. Observational studies that approximate experimental studies tend to (a) be well-controlled (i.e., measure potential confounders prior to risk factors, and use comparison groups or statistical procedures to account for confounders, e.g., propensity scoring, multivariate regression), and (b) measure within-individual change in risk factors. The ability of such observational studies to identify risk factors and likely causal relationships between risk factors and reoffending is important, given experiments are often difficult or impossible to conduct where risk factors for reoffending are concerned.
Identifying ecological risk factors for reoffending brings additional challenges. Scholars of ecology face an array of methodological complications, which have been discussed in depth elsewhere (see Diez Roux & Mair, 2010). These challenges include the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) and uncertain geographic context problems (UGCP), which speak to the introduction of error dependent on how geographic units are defined and differential exposure of individuals to those units (Fotheringham & Wong, 1991; Kwan, 2012). Scholars of ecology also face challenges in establishing causal risk factors (Diez Roux & Mair, 2010). By virtue of their very scale, exposure to macro-level factors is not easily manipulated and, as a result, experiments are seldom employed. In the absence of such techniques, ecological research is challenged by the potential for social selection, whereby the factors that lead people to live in certain contexts may confound the association between the qualities of those contexts and outcomes (Cheshire, 2012). As previously discussed, one experimental study (MtO) has examined the relationship between moving to less disadvantaged contexts and delinquency. We know of no experimental study that has examined residential movement's effect on reoffending among youth.
Still, there is good reason to take stock of what research does exist. First, as previously discussed, well-designed observational research can speak to causal risk factors for reoffending and, in turn, inform interventions to curb reoffending. Second, identification of risk factors for reoffending, even if not causal, has relevance to risk assessment and the identification of youth likely to reoffend. Studies that identify ecological risk factors can also provide insight into the complex relationships between contexts and outcomes; they can identify which elements of environments are associated with outcomes, assess specific patterns of interaction between individuals and their environments, and test group differences across these associations and patterns (Sharkey & Faber, 2014). As noted by Sharkey and Faber (2014), researchers should avoid reducing such complexity to questions of whether or not residential context “matters,” and instead pursue research that can answer “when, where, why, and for whom…residential contexts matter” (p. 562). The current study heeds this advice, while responding to calls for systematic reviews that speak to risk factors and possible causes of reoffending.
The aim of this paper is to synthesize and assess research on the ecology-reoffending relationship. Specifically, we systematically review studies to answer two research questions: (1) What, if any, ecological factors predict reoffending among youth? And, (2) where research supports the relationship between ecological factors and reoffending, what is the nature of that relationship (i.e., how and for whom do ecological factors matter for reoffending)? In the remainder of this paper, we synthesize studies to identify likely socio-structural, economic, and justice system-related ecological risk factors for reoffending. We then assess what these studies say about where, when, why and for whom contexts matter for reoffending, and whether current research provides correlational or causal support. We conclude by discussing lessons learned, emphasizing implications for future research that seeks to strengthen risk prediction and inform interventions to reduce reoffending and related collateral consequences.
Section snippets
Methods
This study followed the guidelines set forth in Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P; Moher et al., 2015), with further guidance from Murray et al. (2009). Our inclusion criteria (see Table 1 for further detail) yielded studies that (1) were conducted in the United States from January 1983 to April 2019; (2) sampled people with index offenses before the age of 18; (3) tested the relationship between an ecological factor and an outcome of
Results
Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria (see Table 3). To contextualize our assessment of the ecology-reoffending relationship, we first describe study characteristics, including factors tested, location, design, measures, and statistical analyses. We note patterns that indicate variation in effects based on these characteristics. Next, we assess evidence for the relationship between specific ecological factors and reoffending. Finally, we describe study results as they pertain to tests of
Discussion
In the past fifteen years, research on juvenile reoffending has experienced an ecological turn, wherein numerous studies on the relationship between ecological factors and juvenile reoffending have emerged. To take stock of these efforts and inform future research, we have systematically reviewed and synthesized studies on this relationship. We find that, despite the production of an impressive body of research on the ecology-reoffending relationship, samples reflect relatively few regions and
Conclusion
In recent years, research on the ecology-reoffending relationship among youth has grown exponentially. This paper systematically reviewed this body of research to provide a much-needed synthesis of findings. We find some evidence that concentrated disadvantage predicts reoffending and that measures of inequality and offender concentration seem worthy of further investigation. We also find purely economic and demographic (aside from immigrant concentration) ecological factors are poor predictors
Funding
This work has been financially supported by the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Interventions to Enhance Community Health (CiTECH). The content solely reflects the ideas of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors know of no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Edward Mulvey of the School of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Ray Engel and Dr. Rachel Gartner of the School of Social Work at the University of Pittsburgh for their thoughtful feedback on manuscript drafts. We also would like to acknowledge the contribution of research assistant, Kelly Nissley, B.S.W., who assisted with a scoping review that informed the literature reviewed here and who helped pilot the review protocol used in this study.
References (101)
- et al.
Long-term predictors of crime desistance in juvenile delinquents: A systematic review of longitudinal studies
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2015) - et al.
Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism
Journal of Criminal Justice
(2007) - et al.
Back on the streets: Maturation and risk factors for recidivism among serious juvenile offenders
Journal of Adolescence
(2015) - et al.
Contagion and repeat offending among urban juvenile delinquents
Journal of Adolescence
(2011) - et al.
From risk assessment to risk management: Matching interventions to adolescent offenders’ strengths and vulnerabilities
Children and Youth Services Review
(2014) Neighborhood factors related to the likelihood of successful informal social control efforts
Journal of Criminal Justice
(2014)- et al.
A meta-analysis of the association between mental disorders and juvenile recidivism
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2017) - et al.
The protective impact of immigrant concentration on juvenile recidivism: A statewide analysis of youth offenders
Journal of Criminal Justice
(2015) - et al.
Pick a number: Mapping recidivism measures and their consequences
Crime & Delinquency
(2017) - et al.
Creating measures of theoretically relevant neighborhood attributes at multiple spatial scales
Sociological Methodology
(2014)
A multilevel examination of risk/need change scores, community context, and successful reentry of committed juvenile offenders
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
An assessment of protective factors in predicting juvenile reoffending
The psychology of criminal conduct
Gender differences in outcomes of juvenile court-involved youth following intensive in-home services
Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research
Understanding racial differences in exposure to violent areas: Integrating survey, smartphone, and administrative data resources
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Moving beyond neighborhood: Activity spaces and ecological networks as contexts for youth development
Life on the “outs”—Examination of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated youth
Exceptional Children
Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control.
Community context and the deterrent effect of sanctions
The impact of neighborhood disadvantage and exposure to violence on self-report of antisocial behavior among girls in the juvenile justice system
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Are mixed community policies evidence based? A review of the research on neighbourhood effects
Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among serious juvenile offenders
Developmental Psychology
The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis
Criminal Justice and Behavior
The potential mediating impact of future orientation on the ACE-crime relationship
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Do social bonds buffer the impact of adverse childhood experiences on reoffending
You Violence and Juvenile Justice
Neighborhood and Health
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development
Annual Review of Psychology
The role of substance abuse factors in predicting recidivism: A meta-analysis
Psychology, Crime and Law
Instrumental variable analysis with censored data in the presence of many weak instruments: Application to the effect of being sentenced to prison on time to employment
The Annals of Applied Statistics
Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Advancing knowledge about desistance
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
Routine activity approach
The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis
Environment and Planning
Informal social control and crime events
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
Influences of neighborhood context, individual history and parenting behavior on recidivism among juvenile offenders
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences
The coaction of neighborhood and individual effects on juvenile recidivism
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis
Psychological Methods
Community disadvantage, prosocial bonds, and juvenile reoffending: A multilevel mediation analysis
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Long-term effects of restorative justice conferencing on future criminality: The Indianapolis experiment
Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early results of a randomized mobility experiment
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Does staff see what experts see? Accuracy of front line staff in scoring juveniles’ risk factors
Psychological Assessment
Neighborhood effects on crime for female and male youth: Evidence from a randomized housing voucher experiment
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Coming to terms with the terms of risk
Archives of General Psychiatry
The uncertain geographic context problem
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
Sexual activity, pregnancy, and deviance in a representative urban sample of African American girls
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Examining the relative influence of community context on juvenile offender post-confinement recidivism
Moving to opportunity: An experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health
American Journal of Public Health
Kicked out or dropped out? Disaggregating the effects of community-based treatment attrition on juvenile recidivism
Justice Quarterly
Early predictors of male delinquency: A review
Psychological Bulletin
Cited by (10)
Constructs associated with youth crime and violence amongst 6-18 year olds: A systematic review of systematic reviews
2024, Aggression and Violent BehaviorRecidivism and community context: Integrating the environmental backcloth
2021, Journal of Criminal JusticeCitation Excerpt :Since then, much of the attention has been focused on the social-structural characteristics of neighborhoods given their robust findings when predicting neighborhood crime rates; however, as Jacobs and Skeen (2020) eloquently state, residential location matters for recidivism, but not equally across people, indicating that context matters (see also McNeeley, 2018a, 2018b). There have been two recent meta-analyses, by Jacobs, Ashcraft, Sewall, Wallace, and Folb (n.d.) and Jacobs, Ashcraft, Sewall, Folb, and Mair (2020), focused on neighborhood characteristics and recidivism or re-offending. Overall, concentrated disadvantage was not a significant measure once adjusting for individual-level measures; however, the effects were found to vary by age and type of recidivism.
The Latino Paradox, the Racial Invariance Thesis, and Recidivism Among a Sample of Juvenile Offenders
2023, Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeExamining the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Juvenile Recidivism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2023, Trauma, Violence, and AbuseThe Greentown Project: Building Evidence to inform Intervention Design for Juveniles Caught-up in Local Criminal Networks
2023, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology