Factors Influencing Recidivism in a High-risk Community Sample
Arrest, Sanctions, and Re-entry
Denver Youth Survey
Slide 3
Research Design of the
Denver Youth Survey
Accelerated Longitudinal Design
Currently Covering the Ages 7-26. Sample Size 1528
Based on Five Birth Cohorts Ages 7,9,11,13,15 in 1987
Approximately Equal Number of Boys and Girls
Selected Through a Probability Sample of Households in High Risk Neighborhoods
of Denver Colorado.
Interviewed Annually 1988-1992 and 1994-1999.
1978 and 1980 Cohorts Interviewed in 2003.
Qualitative Interviews with a Stratified Sub-sample
of 1976, 1978, & 1980 Birth Cohorts in 2004-2005.
Qualitative Interviews
Recidivism
(For this Presentation)
Theoretical Orientations
Toward
Impact of Arrest and Sanctions
The theoretical orientations
have practical and political consequences.
Current Public view and
View Among Many Criminologists
General Conclusion From
Previous
DYS Findings
How general are these
findings?
Slide 12
An Additional Rational
Choice Study
Matsueda, Kraeger, & Huizinga (2005)
Effect of Sanctions
Following Arrest
Why Don’t Arrest and
Sanctions Have the Expected Effect?
What leads to recidivism?
Why Don’t Arrest/Sanctions Work?
1. After arrest/incarceration, arrestees return to the same environment (peers,
family, school, neighborhood) that (presumably) were instigators of the
delinquent behavior.
Placed in the same environment and conditions that existed before apprehension,
continuation of the same behavior would be expected.
Return to same Environment
without
Services or support
Return to same Environment
Without Services or Support
Return to same Environment
Without Services or Support
2. The JJS is not a paper
tiger,
Empirical Support:
Strong
Qualitative interviews: Very Strong
but
Arrest & sanctions, even incarceration,
are no big deal - even
expected.
Empirical Support:
Strong
Qualitative interviews: Strong: Almost
a universal response
Just parts of the “rights of passage” for youth growing
up in “high-risk” neighborhoods.
Common experience for youth and adults.
Positive rewards - approval, respect of peers.
Is the JJS is seen as a
paper tiger?
Evidence: Not generally
Arrest & sanctions, even
incarceration,
are no big deal.
Arrest & sanctions, even
incarceration,
are no big deal.
“Being incarcerated was no big deal, some of my friends were there and we just
did our time”.
Arrest, sanctions, & incarceration, are no big
deal.
Arrest & sanctions, even
incarceration,
are no big deal/have little effect.
3. The JJS leads to
increased exposure to other delinquent peers, either in the “physical plant” of
the JJS or at JJS treatment/sanction sites involving groups of offenders.
Arrest, sanctions, &
incarceration are no big deal.
The JJS leads to increased exposure.
4. Probability of Apprehension is low.
There is little risk of arrest per offense for involvement in delinquent
behavior. The actual probabilities of arrest and/or sanctions are quite low and
the individual’s “experienced probabilities” reflect this.
Probability of Apprehension
is low.
There is little risk of arrest per offense for involvement in delinquent
behavior.
5. There are personal and
social rewards for delinquency … that outweigh risk of apprehension.
So Why Don’t Arrest and Sanctions Have
the Expected Effect?
Some Final Comments
Slide 33
Implications Based on
Current Knowledge
A Final Quote
End
Thanks for Listening!
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
"End 2"
Support for Labeling
theory - Weak
Labeling theory. Arrest and incarceration lead to labeling and stigmatization
that result in reduced prosocial opportunities and changes in self-concept and
beliefs. The outcome is increased delinquency.
9. Arrestees are individuals
who are on a different life trajectory. Arrestees are not a random sample of
offenders but a sample of offenders with particular backgrounds and personal
characteristics that make them particularly more likely to be delinquent,
arrested, and more difficult to change.
Slide 47
Slide 48