PREDICTING WHO REOFFENDS: THE NEGLECTED ROLE OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT IN RECIDIVISM STUDIES*

Prior studies of recidivism have focused almost exclusively on individual‐level characteristics of offenders and their offenses to explore the correlates of reoffending. Notably absent from these studies are measures reflecting the neighborhood contexts in which individuals live. The current research addresses this shortcoming. Using data on a sample of ex‐offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland and surrounding area) in conjunction with 2000 census data, we answer two questions. First, which individual‐level factors influence rates of recidivism? Second, to what extent does neighborhood socioeconomic status account for variation in the reoffending behavior of ex‐prisoners that is not explained by their individual‐level characteristics? We find that those who return to disadvantaged neighborhoods recidivate at a greater rate while those who return to resource rich or affluent communities recidivate at a lesser rate, controlling for individual‐level factors.     

ASSESSING NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON CHILDHOOD VIOLENCE IN AN AFRICAN‐AMERICAN SAMPLE*

The present study examines the extent to which neighborhood and social psychological influences predict childhood violence among 867 African‐American youth. The results showed that neighborhood affluence was the only neighborhood‐level variable to exert a significant influence on childhood violence. Furthermore, childhood violence was significantly related to social psychological influences, such as adopting a street code, associating with violent peers, parental use of violence, and quality parenting. Overall, the findings suggested that simply living in a violent neighborhood does not produce violent children, but that family, peer, and individual characteristics play a large role in predicting violence in childhood.     

SENTENCING AND UNWARRANTED DISPARITY: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN MINNESOTA*

Using an interrupted time-series design, this research note analyzes the long-term effect of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines on reducing unwarranted disparity in sentencing outcomes that fall within their scope of authority. Unwarranted disparity is defined as residual variation not attributable to legally mandated sentencing factors. Findings suggest that although the sentencing guidelines initially reduced disparity for the no prison/prison sentencing decision, inequality began to revert to preguideline levels as time passed. Further analysis revealed that the guidelines had a permanent impact on reducing disparities in decisions on the length of prison sentence. Overall we observed an 18% decline in disparity for the no prison/prison outcome and a 60% reduction in inequality for the judicial decision as to length of prison sentence. Two explanations for the reversionary trend in the no prison/prison series are highlighted.     

POWER, RATIONALITY AND LEGITIMACY IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

In this paper we propose answers to the research question: how does power shape the construction of legitimacy in the context of public organizations? We suggest that while organizational structures of dominancy will be embedded, not all structures of dominancy align with those that are normatively presented as legitimate and authoritative. Such situations make the creation and sustenance of legitimacy problematic for organizational action. This paper advances our understanding of the relation between power, rationality and legitimacy by showing how structures of domination recursively constitute, and are constituted by, legitimacy that may not be authoritative. We show, empirically, how these relations prevented a police organization from reforming by breaking the recursive patterns of domination and legitimization. Theoretically, we argue that understanding organizational change must be connected to issues of power and legitimacy.