December 2016 15

An Examination of the Impact of Criminological Theory on Community Corrections Practice

James Byrne University of Massachusetts Lowell Don Hummer Penn State Harrisburg

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT parole officers in terms of practical advice; to other community corrections programs are to why people commit crime are used—and mis- the contrary, we think a discussion of “cause” is be successful as “people changing” agencies. used—every day by legislative policy makers critical to the ongoing debate over the appro- But can we reasonably expect such diversity and community corrections managers when priate use of community-based sanctions, and flexibility from community corrections they develop new initiatives, sanctions, and and the development of effective community agencies, or is it more likely that one theory— programs; and these theories are also being corrections policies, practices, and programs. or group of theories—will be the dominant applied—and misapplied—by line commu­ However, the degree of uncertainty on the influence on community corrections practice? nity corrections officers in the workplace as cause—or causes—of our crime problem in Based on recent reviews of United States cor­ they classify, supervise, counsel, and con­ the academic community suggests that a rections history, we suspect that one group of trol offenders placed on their caseloads. The certain degree of skepticism is certainly in theories—supported by a dominant political purpose of this article is to provide a brief order when “new” crime control strategies are ideology—will continue to dominate until overview of the major theories of crime causa­ introduced. We need to look carefully at the the challenges to its efficacy move the field— tion and then to consider the implications of theory of crime causation on which these new both ideologically and theoretically—in a new these criminological theories for current and initiatives are based. It is our view that since direction. We may—or may not—be at such a future community corrections practice. Four each group of theories we describe is appli- watershed point in the United States today. See distinct groups of theories will be examined: cable to at least some of the offenders under Table 1 below. classical theories, biological theories, psy­ correctional control in this country, interven­ chological theories, and sociological theories tion strategies will need to be both crime- and 1. Classical Criminology of crime causation. While the underlying offender-specific, if probation, parole, and Why do people decide to break the law? assumptions of classical criminology have been used to justify a wide range of sentencing TABLE 1. and corrections policies and practices over the An Overview of Criminological Theories past several decades, it is also possible to iden­ tify the influence of other theories of crime Classically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as a conscious choice by individuals causation on corrections policies and practices based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of various forms of criminal activity. during this same period. As we examine each Biologically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as determined—in part—by the group of theories, we consider how—and presence of certain inherited traits that may increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. why—the basic functions of probation and Psychologically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as the consequence of individual parole officers change based on the theory of factors, such as negative early childhood experiences and inadequate socialization, that result in crime causation under review. criminal thinking patterns and/or incomplete cognitive development. When considering the link between theory Sociologically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as primarily influenced by a and practice, it is important to remember the variety of community-level factors that appear to be related—both directly and indirectly—to following basic truth: Criminologists disagree the high level of crime in some of our (often poorest) communities, including blocked legitimate about both the causes and solutions to our opportunity, the existence of subcultural values that support criminal behavior, a breakdown of crime problem. This does not mean that crim­ community-level informal social controls, and an unjust system of criminal laws and criminal inologists have little to offer to probation and justice. 16 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3

To a classical criminologist, the answer is be linked to tougher sentencing policies, while sex offenders, based on the belief that if these simple: The benefits of law breaking (such as three quarters of the decline have been attrib­ offenders know they are being monitored, money, property, revenge, and status) simply uted to other factors (such as the economy, they will be less likely to re-offend. The use outweigh the potential costs/consequences of education, and immigration). of electronic monitoring for sex offenders, getting caught and convicted. When viewed A careful review of the evaluation research domestic violence offenders, and others on from a classical perspective, we are all capable on the latest wave of deterrence-oriented probation and parole has been justified using of committing crime in a given situation, but community-based sanctions does not support similar logic. However, the research reviews we make a rational decision (to act or desist) the notion that increased surveillance and on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring based on our analysis of the costs and benefits control reduces recidivism (that is, an offend­ do not support this strategy (Byrne, 2016). of the action. If this is true, then it is certainly er’s likelihood of rearrest, reconviction, and/ A good example of how classical crimi­ possible to deter a potential offender by (1) or re-incarceration). There are two possible nology can be applied in the community developing a system of “sentencing” in which explanations for these findings: (1) the under­ corrections field is found in David Farabee’s the punishment outweighs the (benefit of the) lying assumptions of classical criminologists monograph, Reexamining Rehabilitation. In crime, and (2) ensuring both punishment (i.e., most people are rational, and weigh this review, Farabee offered several recom­ certainty and celerity through efficient police the costs and benefits of various acts in the mendations for corrections reform that focus and court administration. “Classical” theories same manner) are wrong (e.g., people com­ on deterrence-based intervention strategies. of criminal behavior are appealing to criminal mit crimes for emotional reasons, because of He argued that since his review of the avail­ justice policy makers, because they are based mental illness, and/or because they believe the able research reveals that a prison sentence on the premise that the key to solving the criminal act is justified, given circumstances does not either deter or rehabilitate offenders, crime problem is to have a strong system of and prevailing community values); or (2) the we need to reconsider our current reliance formal social control. In other words, the clas­ current sentencing strategies and community on this sentencing strategy. While the use of sical theorist believes that the system can make corrections programs need to be even tougher incarceration can be justified for those vio­ a difference, regardless of the myriad of indi­ and deterrence-oriented (in other words, the lent offenders who require control through vidual and social ills that exist. During the past theory is correct; it just has not been imple­ incapacitation, it cannot be justified using four decades, a number of federal, state, and mented correctly). the logic of offender change (through deter­ local programs have been initiated to improve In the short run, it appears that policy mak­ rence or rehabilitation). Because prison does the deterrent capacity of the criminal justice ers and program developers favor the latter not appear to deter non-violent offenders, he system, including proactive police strategies explanation; prison populations and incarcer­ believes that we need to experiment with the to ensure greater certainty of apprehension, ation rates in the United States remain among use of deterrence-based community-supervi­ priority prosecution/speedy trial strategies the highest in the world (Byrne, Pattavina, & sion strategies, not only as a sentencing option to ensure greater celerity (speed) in the court Taxman, 2015), while community corrections but also as a response to offenders who refuse process, and determinate/mandatory sentenc­ populations and probation rates also remain to comply with the conditions of community ing strategies to ensure greater punishment high, and continue to use multiple condi­ supervision. The key features of Farabee’s certainty and severity. To further our deter­ tions that emphasize surveillance and control model are highlighted below in Table 2. rent aims, we have significantly increased our (through drug testing, electronic monitoring, Perhaps the most intriguing component institutional capacity during this same period curfews, and now social media monitoring). of the above strategy is the recommendation and passed legislation that includes manda­ For example, in the name of deterrence, that offenders under community supervision tory minimum periods of incarceration for legislation has been passed in several states should be closely supervised in order to detect drug-related crimes, while simultaneously allowing the lifetime supervision of paroled violations of the conditions of community developing a series of surveillance-oriented intermediate sanctions (e.g., intensive proba­ tion supervision, electronic monitoring/house TABLE 2. arrest) for a subgroup of the offenders under David Farabee’s Model of Corrections community supervision. Recommendation 1: “De-emphasize prison as a sanction for nonviolent offenses and increase It is apparent from these initiatives that clas­ the use of intermediate sanctions...Furthermore, minor parole violations....should be punished sical assumptions about crime causation are by using a graduated set of intermediate sanctions, rather than returning the offender to prison” still being used as the basis for current crime (p 63). control strategies. Some have argued that our Recommendation 2: “Use prison programs to serve as institutional management tools, not as four-decade-long emphasis on “deterrence­ instruments of rehabilitation” (64). based” crime control policies has resulted in Recommendation 3: “Mandate experimental designs for all program evaluations” (66). safer communities; in fact, by most standard measures (crime rates, victimization rates) we Recommendation 4: “Establish evaluation contracts with independent agencies” (67). have less crime and less violence today than Recommendation 5: “Increase the use of indeterminate community supervision, requiring three at any point since the early 1970s. However, consecutive years without a new offense or violation” (68). there is disagreement among academics on the source of this decline (see Byrne, 2013 for Recommendation 6: “Reduce parole caseloads to fifteen to one, and increase the use of new tracking technologies” (71). an overview), with most experts estimating that about a quarter of the crime decline can Source: Farabee (2005) December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 17

TABLE 3. with Enforcement (HOPE)—did not find Classical Theory and Community Corrections Practice evidence to support these initial claims, and the future of HOPE-based community correc­ Theoretical Assumptions Intervention Strategy Examples of Programs/Strategies tions initiatives is a matter of debate (Nagan, Individuals are rational and General and Specific Mandatory Sentencing and 2016; Lattimore et al., 2016; Cullen & Pratt, weigh the costs and benefits Deterrence Sentencing Guideline Schemes 2016). See Table 3. of their actions similarly Individuals will be deterred Establish clear links The use of either judicially 2. Biological Criminology from committing criminal between illegal behavior imposed or administratively Criminologists who focus on biological expla­ acts if the costs of the illegal and consequences, imposed special conditions nations for criminal behavior do not share the activity outweigh the benefit utilizing sanctions that of Probation and Parole same perspective on behavior (and motiva­ of the activity in the mind of include loss of freedom, Supervision the potential offenders loss of rights and tion) as classical criminologists. The basic privileges, drug testing, assumption of early biological criminolo­ and/or mandatory work, gists, such as the Italian criminologist Cesare community service, Lombroso (1835-1909), was that crime was fines, and treatment determined by an individual’s biological make- There are three components Community corrections Day Reporting Centers up, i.e.,that some persons were born criminals of the deterrence calculus personnel will monitor who could not control their actions. It is (1) certainty of detection and compliance with important to keep in mind that Lombroso did apprehension, (2) speed/ conditions of supervision Intensive Supervision Programs not argue that all crime could be explained by celerity of the criminal and respond quickly biological factors. He estimated that offenders justice system’s sanction, and and consistently to any Electronic Monitoring/ Home (3) severity of the sanction detected violations, Confinement Programs with atavistic tendencies (i.e., throwbacks to imposed for each prohibited utilizing a structured earlier more primitive man) were respon­ act hierarchy of sanctions sible for about a third of all crime. Although linked to the seriousness HOPE probation initiatives Lombroso’s research on the physical charac­ of the violation(s). teristics of offenders was dismissed due to its poor quality, most reviews of the available supervision, such as curfews and prohibi­ potential users a simple choice: abstain from research have concluded that we simply have tions on drug and alcohol use. If a violation drug use today and remain in the community, not yet studied the biology-crime connection is detected, the three-year supervision “clock” or use drugs today and get locked up. They in sufficient detail to make any definitive is pushed back to zero, which means that for argued that most probationers will quickly statements about the efficacy of the theory some noncompliant offenders community comply, resulting in less overall jail time for itself. Interestingly, there has been a recent supervision will result in several additional program participants and the need for treat- resurgence of interest in a range of biological years under the watchful eyes of community ment in only a small percentage (1 in 5) of factors, including genetics and biochemical corrections officers. David Farabee has sug­ all cases, due to continued drug test failures. and neurophysiological factors (e.g., diet, food gested that the deterrence “tipping point” is The argument was that for most probationers, allergies, EEG abnormalities). Perhaps the likely found when the odds of detection (of addiction was actually a choice, not a dis- most compelling argument in support of bio­ criminal acts or rule violation) are about one ease. The initial findings from the evaluation criminology was offered 30 years ago by James in three (Farabee, 2005). To achieve this level of Hawaii’s HOPE program were impres- Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein. After of monitoring, he argues for the hiring of sive, with significant reductions in drug use, reviewing all the available research on biol- additional community corrections personnel recidivism, and jail time reported. However, ogy and crime, these two authors argued that to allow smaller caseloads (15 to 1) and mul­ the follow-up multi-site replication study of at least one type of crime—predatory street tiple conditions of compliance monitoring. this program—Honest Opportunity Probation crime—could be explained by “showing how A more recent example of a deterrence- based community corrections initiative is TABLE 4. Hawaii’s HOPE program, which was designed Biological Criminology and Community Corrections Practice to ensure certainty of punishment for offend­ ers who did not follow the rules of probation, Theoretical Assumptions Intervention Strategy Examples of Programs/Strategies in particular the prohibition on continued Some individuals have Strategies designed to (1) The use of specialized substance abuse. The assumption of pro­ genetically-linked identify offenders with community supervision gram developers was that on a day-to-day characteristics (such as low biological characteristics caseloads utilizing treatment basis, addiction was a choice, and offenders IQ, learning disabilities, that increase their risk of and control strategies for sex needed to know that the consequence of high serotonin levels, criminal behavior and offenders and for violent/ underdeveloped autonomic (2) provide individual assaultive offenders. choosing to do drugs would be a short period nervous systems) that treatment to address of incarceration (Kleiman, 2016). To detect predispose them to criminal the problem identified drug use, probationers were subject to fre­ behavior. through drug treatment quent, random drug tests. Program developers and other behavioral argued that increasing certainty would offer interventions. 18 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3 human nature develops from the interplay both short and long-term individual and fam­ to 10 percent of the probation population of psychological, biological, and social fac­ ily counseling by trained therapists. Probation has absconded, while another 15 percent had tors” (1986: 1). There certainly appears to be and parole officers could either be hired with their probation revoked for failure to com­ an emerging body of research examining the the necessary qualifications (e.g., a Master’s ply with the conditions of probation release. linkage of biology, environment, and various degree in Psychology or Social Work) or the Comparable patterns of failure are found form of criminal behavior (see Pratt et al., agency could refer offenders to existing com­ among parolees, suggesting that we need to 2016; Portnoy et al., 2014). munity treatment resources. To the extent rethink our current approach to offender con­ What are the implications of bio-crim­ that early identification of “pre-delinquents” trol in community settings. inological theory for probation and parole is also recommended by advocates of the psy­ One strategy advocated by a number of practice? This is a difficult question to answer. choanalytic perspective, (juvenile) probation corrections experts is simply to set fewer con­ No estimates are available on the size of the and parole officers would need to develop ditions, but to enforce those conditions we do current offender population that is affected, collaborative agreements with local school set (Jacobson, 2005). Others have argued that either directly or indirectly, by these biological boards regarding a comprehensive screening it is not the number, but the type, of conditions factors, but it seems safe to predict that before protocol and the development of appropri­ that should be carefully examined. For exam­ probation and parole agencies could address ate early childhood intervention strategies. ple, should we mandate weekly drug testing the needs of these offenders, money for treat­ Because of limited community corrections for probationers and parolees with admitted ment would have to be found. Individual resources, we do not anticipate community substance abuse problems, even when the treatment plans would vary by the type of corrections agencies focusing much attention agency lacks the necessary resources to place problem identified. It also seems likely that a on pre-delinquents in the coming decade, but these same offenders in an appropriate treat­ policy of selective incapacitation would be dis­ given the current fascination with predic­ ment program? Answers to questions such cussed as a means to “control” the treatment tive analytics, it is not out of the question. as this are critical to the success of probation failures that inevitably would emerge from Nonetheless, the influence of psychoanalytic and parole strategies based on the two basic these community-based programs. theory is substantial, since a wide range of assumptions of social learning theory: treatment models are based (in whole or part) ●● People will repeat behavior when it is grati­ 3. Psychological Criminology on these theoretical assumptions (e.g., indi­ fying, that is, when it is rewarded. The field of psychology has influenced com­ vidual therapy, group therapy, reality therapy, ●● Punishment is immediately effective only munity corrections in a number of important guided group interaction). for as long as it lasts and cannot be avoided. areas: (1) the classification of offenders’ risk It will not extinguish unacceptable behav­ and needs; (2) the development of case man­ B. Social Learning Theories ior—unless some optional behavior is agement plans and offender supervision Adherents of social learning theory make a found that is as rewarding to the person as strategies; (3) the techniques used to inter­ common-sense claim: Behavior is learned was the original behavior. view, assess, and counsel offenders; and (4) when it is reinforced, and not learned when It appears to us that probation and parole the strategies used to foster compliance with it is not reinforced. Building on this basic officers spend too much time telling offend­ the basic rules of community supervision. premise, many residential juvenile treatment ers what to do and too little time explaining Because of their focus on individual problems, programs include “token economies,” which why they should behave in a certain way. it is the psychological theories of criminal reward juveniles for adherence to program Borrowing for a moment from the title of behavior that have had the most direct influ­ rules, utilizing positive reinforcement tech­ criminologist Jack Katz’s recent book, we need ence on probation and parole practice in this niques to help juveniles learn appropriate to offer offenders a reasonable alternative to country. Much of what currently passes as behavior. Similarly, probation and parole offi­ the “seductions of crime,” because—if social “rehabilitation” in the field of community- cers establish conditions of supervision that learning theorists are correct—punishment based corrections is taken from one or more represent a “behavioral contract” between alone will simply not work. Similarly, a strat­ of the following four groups of psychological the probation officer and the offender. If an egy of drug control based on the slogan “Just theories. offender adheres to the contract for a set say no—or else!” fails to recognize that people period of time, he or she is rewarded by a get high on drugs because they like the expe­ A. Psychoanalytic Theory relaxation of supervision standards (such as rience. A social learning theorist would argue Psychoanalytic theorists, such as Sigmund downgrading an offender’s risk classification that we need to replace the positive feelings an Freud (1856-1939), explain criminal behavior level, requiring fewer meetings with the P.O., offender gets from doing drugs (and crime) as follows: no curfew, no drug testing). with some other positive experience, such as The actions and behavior of an adult The problem with such behavioral con­ involvement in the arts, music, and/or other are understood in terms of childhood tracting in probation and parole is that judges, leisure activities, including sports. Strategies development. parole boards, and probation and parole offi­ designed to facilitate positive lifestyle change Behavior and unconscious motives are cers simply set too many conditions and then among offenders under community control intertwined, and the interaction must be do not uniformly enforce them; inevitably, have been reviewed by the United Kingdom’s unraveled if we are to understand criminality. this leads to high levels of noncompliance by National Offender Management Service, with Criminality is essentially a representation probationers and parolees. For example, sur­ mixed results reported (Byrne & Shultz, 2014). of psychological conflict (Adler, Mueller, & veys of absconding levels (i.e., offenders who Laufer, 2013). Advocates of psychoanalytic fail to report and/or leave the area without C. Cognitive Development Theories explanations would emphasize the need for permission) reveal that, at any one time, up A third group of psychological theories December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 19

—cognitive development theories—has also TABLE 5. been used to explain criminal behavior, and Psychological Criminology and Community Corrections Practice a wide range of offender treatment pro­ grams have been implemented in recent years Theoretical Assumptions Intervention Strategy Examples of Programs/Strategies based on this group of theories (MacKenzie, (1) Psychoanalytic theories (1) The use of either (1) Individual counseling 2006). Cognitive development theories, ini­ assume that negative early mandatory or voluntary strategies using both community tially developed by the Swiss psychologist childhood experiences may individual treatment as a corrections personnel and local increase the probability of condition of supervision. referrals to local counselors, Jean Piaget and then refined by Lawrence criminal behavior. psychologists, and psychiatrists. Kohlberg and his colleagues, essentially argue that offenders have failed to develop their (2) Social Learning theories (2) The use of conditions (2) Residential community moral judgment capacity beyond the precon­ focus on the ways in which that restrict who an corrections programs often behavior is learned and offender can interact use token economies to ventional level. Kohlberg found that moral reinforced. with and where he or reinforce positive behavior, reasoning (i.e., our capacity “to do the right she can live, work, or while behavioral contracting thing”) develops in three stages: visit; the application of has become standard practice behavior modification in many state community . . . in stage one, the preconventional techniques. corrections systems, including California and Arizona. stage, children (age 9-11) think, “If I steal, what are my chances of getting (3) Cognitive Development (3) Regular meetings (3) Many drug treatment caught and punished?” Stage two is theories link criminal between offenders and programs utilize the basic the conventional level, when adoles­ behavior to a failure to move community corrections tenets of cognitive development from the pre-conventional officers, focusing on theory, making it the most cents think “It is illegal to steal and to the conventional and morality, fairness, and popular group treatment strategy therefore I should not steal, under any post-conventional stages of related issues; the referral currently being employed in this circumstances.” Stage three is the post- cognitive development. of offenders—including country. conventional level (adults over 20 years drug, violent, and sex old), when individuals critically exam­ offenders—to group treatment strategies ine customs and social rules according based on this theory. to their own sense of universal human rights, moral principles, and duties (4) Criminal personality (4) Classification (4) Taxman’s Proactive (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2004: 87). theories assume that of offenders with Community Supervision Strategy offenders have developed criminal personality targets offenders’ criminal criminal thinking patterns traits, followed by thinking; it has been used in Is it possible to improve the moral judg­ that are distinct from those placement in specialized Maryland, Minnesota, and ments of offenders by utilizing probation of non-offenders. supervision caseloads several other state community and parole officers as role models? Kohlberg corrections systems. observed that we learn morality from those we interact with on a regular basis—our fam­ D. Criminality Personality “condition” than others. Since we “develop a ily, friends, and others in the community. It The final group of psychological theories conscience through conditioning,” it is not certainly makes sense that moral development focuses on the potential link between per­ surprising that antisocial behavior is more could be improved by increased contacts sonality and criminality. Although there is likely when this process breaks down for some between POs and offenders, especially if the currently much debate on whether personal­ reason (Eysenck, 1987). focus of these sessions was on morality (e.g., ity characteristics play a significant role in If a criminal personality (or identifiable justice, fairness), rather than the typical ritu­ determining subsequent criminal behavior, criminal thinking pattern) does exist, what—if alism of most office visits. In Massachusetts, a number of prominent criminologists have anything—can probation and parole officers the probation department sponsored a series argued that “the root causes of crime are do about the problem? The answer may be of violence prevention workshops utilizing not…social issues [high unemployment, bad that it depends on exactly how the problem the basic principles described by Kohlberg schools] but deeply ingrained features of the is defined. For example, it has been esti­ and his associates. Initial research reveals human personality and its early experiences. mated that a significant proportion (over “significant increases in moral development” Low intelligence, an impulsive personality, 20 percent in some studies) of the current when these types of programs are initiated and a lack of empathy for other people are state correctional population in this country (Guarino-Ghezzi & Trevino, 2014). In addi­ among the leading individual characteristics could be classified as psychopaths, with the tion, a variety of treatment programs for of people at risk for becoming offenders” exact estimate depending on exactly how this drug-involved offenders has been developed, (Wilson, 2007: v). Hans Eysenck has com­ term is defined. According to a recent review implemented, and evaluated. In terms of pleted numerous studies on the impact of by Caspi, Moffit, Silva, Stouthamer-Loeber, “what works” with drug-involved offenders, personality characteristics on criminality. Krueger and Schmutte (2006:82), “Across treatment programs based on this theory are He theorizes that criminal behavior may be different samples and different methods, our among the most effective in the field, accord­ a function of both personality differences studies of personality and crime suggest that ing to the most recent evidence-based reviews (i.e., offenders are more likely to be neurotic crime-proneness is defined both by high nega­ (see, e.g., Taxman & Pattavina, 2014). and extroverted) and conditioning, in that tive emotionality and by low constraint.” This some individuals are simply more difficult to certainly sounds like the criminal personality 20 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3 described earlier. No reliable estimates are social problems. In the following section, we and “status” in a very different manner. These available on the extent of this problem among highlight the emerging role of probation and individuals gained status and self-esteem by the seven million plus offenders under some parole officers as advocates for community engaging in crime and emphasizing (anti­ form of correctional control today, but it is a change (and control) based on five differ­ social, hedonistic) behavior that directly safe bet that community corrections personnel ent types of sociological theories of criminal challenged existing norms. Since it is the sub­ simply would not have the experience, train­ behavior: strain theories, subcultural theories, group of “delinquent boys” that is most likely ing, and/or resources necessary to address a social ecological theories, control theories, to become adult criminals, it certainly makes problem of this magnitude. and societal reaction theories. sense to develop intervention strategies aimed Since “criminal personality” theory is based at changing the social conditions that spawn on the assumption that offenders have errone­ A. Strain Theories delinquent subcultures. ous thinking patterns, it seems certain that The first group of sociological theories we Building on Cohen’s theory, criminolo­ intensive individual therapy would be required will discuss are called strain theories. These gists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin have to address this problem. Based on this theory, theories may focus on different aspects of theorized that different types of subcultures a range of correctional interventions involv­ criminal behavior (e.g., juvenile crime, gang emerge because there is differential access to ing direct confrontation of thinking errors formation, specific offender types), but they both legitimate and illegitimate opportuni­ and behavior modification techniques can share one common assumption: Some (other­ ties in these lower-class communities. Stable be envisioned. Ironically, the recent wave wise moral) people are driven to crime out of lower-class neighborhoods are characterized of intermediate sanctions—house arrest/elec­ the frustration (and illegitimate opportunity by a clearly defined criminal subculture, where tronic monitoring, boot camps, residential structure) associated with living in lower- criminal values are easily learned, criminal community corrections, intensive supervi­ class communities. From a strain perspective role models are visible, and a structure exists sion—offered (in theory) exactly the intense, an individual initially attempts to achieve to support various criminal activities. In tran­ close contact that would be a prerequisite for “success” by acceptable means (e.g., educa­ sitional neighborhoods, people are constantly effective treatment of this type of offender. tion, employment) but he or she quickly moving in and/or moving out; as a result, However, program developers have generally realizes that these legitimate avenues are individuals face blocked access to both legiti­ downplayed the role of treatment in these blocked in lower-class communities. Blocked mate and illegitimate opportunities. In these programs, focusing instead on the programs’ access to legitimate avenues of success may neighborhoods, status is gained through the punishment and control components. This come in a variety of general forms, includ­ use of violence in “conflict”-oriented subcul­ “non-treatment” strategy is not consistent with ing under-funded school systems and high tures. Cloward and Ohlin also identify a third the recommendations of psychologists and unemployment rates, as well as in such specific type of subculture, the retreatist subculture, psychiatrists who study the personality char­ policies as (1) tracking in high schools, (2) which includes the “double failures” who were acteristics of offenders. Since we know from the misdiagnosis of juveniles with learning denied access to both the criminal and conflict several well-designed research studies that disabilities as “behavior” problems, and/or subcultures. “Retreatists” often abuse drugs the surveillance-driven “get-tough” commu­ (3) the labeling of students based on decid­ and/or alcohol in order to relieve the frustra­ nity corrections programs (IPS, house arrest, edly middle-class definitions (i.e., utilizing tion they feel because of blocked legitimate electronic monitoring, boot camps) have been middle class measuring rods) of appropriate and illegitimate opportunities. found to be ineffective, perhaps we need group behavior. Cohen believed that because What are the social and correctional policy to design community corrections strategies of the prior socialization of urban youth, they implications of strain theories? If Cohen is and programs that provide both control and enter our educational system at a distinct correct, we had a gang problem in the mid­ treatment, targeting offenders with criminal disadvantage. 1950s for the same basic reason we have a gang thinking patterns (Taxman et al., 2005). According to Albert Cohen, juveniles from problem today in our urban centers: Our inner- lower-class areas respond to the strain in one city educational system is too “middle class“ to 4. Sociological Criminology of three ways: (1) by adopting a “college boy” handle the unique problems of urban youth. In general, sociologists explain criminal role, which entails continued attempts to Evidence supporting Cohen’s critique of urban behavior not by focusing on individual (bio­ achieve success through legitimate avenues, education is not difficult to find. When more logical, psychological) differences between such as school; (2) by adopting a “corner than 40 percent of the high school age students offenders and non-offenders, but rather by boy” role, which results in lowered expecta­ in the Boston, Massachusetts, public school viewing criminal behavior in its broader social tions (and aspirations) for success; or (3) by system drop out of school without graduating, context. By emphasizing the importance of adopting the “delinquent boy” role, which something is fundamentally wrong. Sadly, this social environmental factors—such as pov­ enables youths to redefine “success” in a is not an isolated example; Boston’s drop-out erty, social disorganization, cultural deviance, way that will relieve their status frustration. rate is on par with those of other urban areas and a breakdown of informal social con- Cohen observed that individuals who adopt across the country. Proposals consistent with trols—these criminological theorists directly a “corner boy” role would become involved in Cohen’s view include (1) the education, train­ challenge the basic underlying assumption of marginal forms of crime and deviance (e.g., ing, and hiring of a significant number of traditional correctional interventions: that we drunkenness, drug use), but they would not minority teachers, (2) the discontinuation of can change the offender without changing the pose a major threat to community residents. ability-based tracking programs, (3) increased social context of crime. If this group of crimi­ However, “delinquent boys” responded to funding for the early assessment and treat­ nologists is correct, we will never reduce crime blocked educational opportunity by forming ment of learning disabilities, (4) expansion of in our country until we first address these a subculture (or gang) that defined “success” preschool (Headstart) programs, and (5) the December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 21 development of a full range of alternative edu­ The theory of differential associa­ and McKay, social disorganization occurred cation programs to meet the diverse needs of tion states that crime is learned through in periods of change, due to such factors as inner-city students. social interaction. People come into increased immigration, urbanization, and/or In addition to education reform, Cloward constant contact with “definitions industrialization. Communities characterized and Ohlin have advocated a number of poli­ favorable to violations of law” and “defi­ by social disorganization typically had high cies focusing on improving job opportunities nitions unfavorable to violations of law.” rates of crime and delinquency, owing in large for at-risk youth (and young adults) from The ratio of these definitions—criminal part to a breakdown in the community’s infor­ lower-class areas. In fact, a number of the to noncriminal—determines whether a mal social control system (i.e., family, peers, federal anti-poverty programs originally person will engage in criminal behavior. and neighbors). proposed by President Kennedy and then The solution to the problem of a disor­ funded through President Johnson’s “War on If Sutherland is correct, then the use of ganized community is reorganization, but Poverty” initiatives (e.g., the Job Corp and short and long periods of incarceration may how and where do we begin? In a seminal other employment/training programs) have actually promote subsequent criminal behav­ article, “The Community Context of Violent been linked directly to the positive reaction ior, since incarcerated offenders are rarely Victimization and Offending,” Harvard by Congress to Cloward and Ohlin’s proposals placed in treatment programs (such as thera­ University criminologist Robert Sampson (Huang & Vikse, 2014). peutic communities) designed to offset the argues that: Although strain theorists focus on the need negative effects of a group of criminals living for changes in opportunity structure (jobs, together and thus acting as “schools for crime.” there are . . . policy manipulable education) of the lower-class community, it Similarly, community supervision strategies options that may help reverse the tide can certainly be argued that probation and that ignore the prevailing attitudes of family of community social disintegration. parole officers still need to work with indi­ members, peer group members, and commu­ Among others, these might include (1) vidual offenders in the areas of education and nity residents toward crime and violence will residential management of public hous­ employment. But we need to emphasize that also be ineffective. Whether the offender is ing (to increase stability), (2) tenant from a strain perspective, it is not enough that locked up or placed under community super­ buy-outs (to increase home ownership POs set and monitor conditions of supervision vision, what is needed is the presentation of and commitment to locale), (3) reha­ requiring offenders to “stay in school” or “get an “alternative world view” that underscores bilitation of existing low income housing a job.” Probation and parole officers would the advantages of conformity. Institutional (to preserve area stability, especially need to act as advocates for change in both treatment programs have been developed single-family homes), (4) disbursement the educational and employment opportunity for juvenile and adult offenders along these of public housing (versus concentra­ structure in their communities. lines, utilizing guided group interaction (GGI) tion), and (5) strict code enforcement (to techniques. The problem with this strategy is fight deterioration). (Sampson, 1993) B. Subcultural and Differential that the “group support” disappears when the Association Theories offender graduates from the program. While As we discussed earlier in our analysis of Subcultural (or cultural conflict) theorists examples of community support groups can strain theory and probation and parole prac­ argue that crime is not a function of oppor­ be provided (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, tice, there is a dual role for POs working in tunity; it is a function of values. Although Narcotics Anonymous), it is obvious that we disorganized, lower class communities. On they agree with strain theorists on the relation have done a poor job of providing (both indi­ the one hand, these agencies would need to between class and crime, they take the view vidual and group-level) positive role models take an advocacy role regarding community that individuals who live in lower-class com­ in lower-class communities. Probation and reorganization efforts; but at the same time, munities have been exposed to a different set parole officers may be able to begin to address line probation and parole officers would also of values than individuals from more afflu­ the problem by becoming more visible in need to develop specific, short-term strategies ent areas (see, e.g., Elijah Anderson’s Code of the communities where they work, perhaps for supervising the probationers and parolees the Street). These values include the notion utilizing the basic strategy of the community who live in these communities. One strategy that criminal behavior is indeed acceptable police officer. But visibility in targeted neigh­ would be to place a priority on field visits behavior in certain circumstances. If subcul­ borhoods is only one step in the direction by POs, and to coordinate various offender tural criminologists such as Walter Miller and supported by subcultural theorists. Probation control strategies (such as curfews) with local Marvin Wolfgang are correct, then neither and parole officers would need to embrace neighborhood (block watch) groups. It would educational reform nor increased job oppor­ a mentoring role with the offenders on their also be necessary to consider the use of special tunity will substantially reduce the problem caseloads. conditions to keep probationers and parolees of crime and violence in urban areas. What is out of certain neighborhood areas (or estab­ needed is a fundamental change in the basic C. Social Ecological Theories lishments) known to police as the “hot spots” values of the entire lower-class community. A third group of sociological theories of of crime (and victimization). In a series of But how can we change the values of crime causation emphasize the negative con­ federal and state court decisions, the court has an entire community? According to Edwin sequences of community characteristics on upheld the constitutionality of such conditions Sutherland, the key to understanding crimi­ the behavior of community residents. Clifford as long as they can be reasonably linked to the nality is to recognize how values supporting Shaw and Henry McKay, for example, examined goal of rehabilitation. criminal behavior are defined and transmitted the effect of community social disorganization When viewed from a social ecological from “one generation to the next”: on juvenile misbehavior. According to Shaw perspective, the need for planned community 22 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3 reorganization is obvious. In fact, Shaw and attachment to family may be improved by occurs, the PO is acting as an agent of formal McKay responded to this need by developing utilizing a combination of treatment (e.g., and informal social control. After evaluating the Chicago Area Project in 1934, and simi­ family therapy) and control (e.g., curfews, the impact of the Massachusetts Intensive lar community change efforts have emerged house arrest, electronic monitoring) strate­ Probation Supervision (IPS) Program, Byrne in other poor, urban areas since that time. gies, it makes sense to use probation and and Kelly concluded: While it is difficult to assess the impact of parole conditions to focus on this problem. these attempts at community reorganization, Unfortunately, keeping an adult offender at . . . the relationship that develops our view is that it doesn’t make much sense home at night may simply move the location between PO’s and offenders during the to attempt to change offenders without also of certain forms of criminal behavior, such as intensive supervision process may . . . addressing the “community context” of their assault and substance abuse, from the com­ act as a powerful, informal deterrent to behavior. Probation and parole officers can munity to the home. future criminal activity. (Byrne & Kelly, help organize local residents in this type of Hirschi has also emphasized the impor­ 1989) effort, while also developing offender-specific tance of the school, focusing on attachment (and area-specific) supervision strategies. The to teachers, commitment to education, and The results of the Massachusetts IPS negative consequences of continued residence involvement in school-related activities: evaluation underscore the need for a strong in socially disorganized communities would “attachment to school depends on one’s appre­ probation and parole presence in the lives of not be eliminated by such activities, but the ciation for the institution, one’s perception offenders. When probation and parole offi­ overall risk of recidivism might be reduced to of how he or she is received by teachers cers are involved in the lives of offenders—by some extent. and peers, and how well one does in class” monitoring individual and family treatment, (Hirschi, 1967). In this context, it would by assisting in employment searches, by dis­ D. Control Theories appear to be futile to simply require that a cussing key “life course” events (e.g., marriage, A somewhat different view of crime causa­ young offender “go to school” as a condi­ family, friends, jobs)—they generally respond tion is offered by social control theorists tion of probation/parole, particularly if the by committing fewer crimes. If social control (Gottfredson & Hirshi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969). offender has a history of failure in school. theorists are correct, criminal justice policy Control theorists do not attempt to explain The development of specialized programs for makers have focused far too much attention why “otherwise moral” individuals are driven youth “at risk”—perhaps aimed at improving on formal deterrence mechanisms (e.g., man­ to break the law; they focus instead on why we student-teacher relationships, or increasing datory sentencing laws) and far too little conform to the rules of law in the first place. the number and type of after-school activi­ attention on informal deterrence techniques Criminologist Travis Hirschi has theorized ties—would be more consistent with social (e.g., increased contacts/development of per­ that when an individual’s bond to society is control theory. Unfortunately, these types of sonal relationships). either weak or broken, he or she is “free to programs are difficult to get started and the engage in delinquent acts.” Hirschi has iden­ first to get cut when there is an economic E. Life-course and tified four elements of this bond to society: “downturn.” Developmental Theories attachment, commitment, involvement, and Social Control Theory can also be used In recent years, criminologists have explored belief. He argues that, to justify neighborhood-level changes in both the possibility that we may have overempha­ resource availability (for youth and adults at sized the impact of childhood experiences . . . Attachment to conventional risk) and community values (such as legiti­ (victimization, parenting, peer influences, others, commitment to conventional macy of the criminal justice process, belief in school experiences) on adult patterns of pursuits, involvement in conventional the law). As we noted in our earlier discus­ both continued criminality (the persistent activities, and belief in conventional val­ sion of cognitive development theory, it does offenders) and desistance from crime (i.e., the ues reduces the likelihood that a youth appear that probation and parole officers age-crime connection). According to Sampson will become delinquent. can play a critical role in this latter area. On and Laub (2005), there are four key turning the one hand, they can help communities to points in the adult life-course that appear to Although Hirschi’s theory was originally secure local, state, and federal funding for a be linked to desistance from crime: (1) mar­ applied only to juvenile delinquency, it has variety of programs designed to (1) improve riage, (2) employment, (3) the military, and also been used in recent years to explain family relationships and parenting skills, (2) (4) physical relocation. They conclude that various forms of adult criminality, including expand school resources for students with “Involvement in institutions such as marriage, white-collar crime. academic problems, and (3) increase resident work, and the military reorders short-term Control theory has implications for change involvement in community activities. But situational inducements to crime and, over in a number of family, school, and neighbor­ perhaps more importantly, they can provide time, redirects long-term commitments to hood-level policies that are directly (and/or a function typically reserved for organized conformity” (2005:18). If Sampson and Laub indirectly) related to current probation and religion: to reinforce belief in the moral valid­ are correct, then it would certainly make sense parole practice. For example, since attachment ity of existing laws. This can be accomplished for community corrections officers to recog­ to parents is one element of an individual’s by asking POs to emphasize “morality” in nize the importance of these turning points bond to society, it certainly makes sense their interactions with offenders (Taxman et as they consider the prospects—and develop to develop intervention strategies designed al., 2005) and by developing positive relation­ strategies—for changing the behavior of the to improve parent-child relationships (e.g., ships between offenders and POs that result offenders placed under their direct supervi­ parent training programs). Similarly, since in offender attachment to POs. When this sion. A variety of community corrections December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 23 initiatives consistent with life-course theory TABLE 6. come immediately to mind, including (1) a Sociological Criminology and Community Corrections Practice renewed emphasis on the provision of both Examples of Programs/ job training and employment assistance by Theoretical Assumptions Intervention Strategy Strategies POs, and (2) the development of strategies to assess community “risk” and then relocate (1) Strain (1) Strategies emphasize (1) Day Reporting centers education, skill development, in Massachusetts provide offenders who currently reside in “high-risk” and employment opportunity. a variety of on-site, “one- neighborhoods to lower-risk areas, utilizing stop shopping” asssessment, the lure of new job opportunities or hous­ education, training, and job ing incentives. In addition, the prospects for development programs. offenders joining the military could also be (2) Subcultural Theories (2) Strategies emphasize (2) A number of states have explored, while the prospects for marriage community-level value experimented with gang and/or stability in long-term relationships change, alternatives to gang intervention/gang suppression should improve with changes in employment involvement, and offender strategies; the moving status and physical location. Sampson and relocation. to opportunity program Laub (2005:17) emphasize why these turning sponsored by HUD and other federal initiatives was a large- points are directly linked to desistance: scale offender relocation initiative. The mechanisms underlying the desistance process are consistent with (3) Social Ecological Theories (3) Strategies target improving (3) The Broken Windows community structural Probations strategy advocated the general idea of social control. conditions, resource by Dilulio and others Namely, what appears to be important availability, and collective emphasized the importance about institutional or structural turning efficacy; strengthening of changing both offenders points is that they all involve, to varying informal community social and communities in which degrees, (1) new situations that “knife control mechanisms; and offenders reside. eliminating poverty pockets. off ” the past from the present, (2) new situations that provide both supervision (4) Control Theories (4) Strategies focus on the (4) Proactive community and monitoring as well as opportunities breakdown of informal supervision models currently for social support and growth, (3) new social control mechanisms— used in Maryland and Virginia situations that change and structure attachment, commitment, utilize the basic tenets of involvement, and belief—and control theory. routine activities, and (4) new situa­ emphasize the importance tions that provide the opportunity for of the relationship between identity transformation. the offender and his/her probation/parole officer. When viewed in terms of life-course (5) Life-Course/Developmental (5) Strategies designed to target (5) Many community theory, the role of community corrections Theories the turning points in the life- corrections systems now generally—and community corrections offi­ course that have been directly incorporate key elements of cers in particular—in the offender change/ related to desistance among the life-course perspective— adult offenders—marriage, in particular, the belief desistance process can be easily identified. employment, military service, that offender change is and offender relocation. possible through improved F. Conflict and Societal relationships, stable Reaction Theories employment, and removing A final group of sociological theories of crime of barriers to offender transformation. However, causation can be identified, based on the the prospects for a new start premise that people become criminals not through relocation are limited because of some inherent characteristic, per­ for certain offender groups sonality defect, or other sociologically-based (e.g., sex offenders). “pressure” or influence, but because of deci­ (6) Conflict and Societal (6) Strategies focus on the (6) A number of recent sions made by those in positions of power in Reaction Theories use of alternative dispute/ initiatives consistent with government, especially those in the criminal conflict resolution strategies conflict and societal reaction justice system. Although a number of different that result in lower levels of theories are being introduced theoretical perspectives on the crime prob­ formal criminal justice system across the country, including involvement in the lives of restorative justice programs in lem can be distinguished under this general community residents; and on Florida, the diversion to drug heading, we will focus on only two—labeling the application of community/ court strategy being used in theory and conflict theory. Labeling theorists, restorative justice principles most state court systems, and most notably Edwin Lemert and Howard in traditional criminal justice the reentry strategies being Becker, argue that while most of us have settings, including community developed in Burlington, corrections. Vermont. engaged in activities (at one time or another) 24 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3 that were illegal, only a few of us have actually changes in the criminal justice process, focus­ these programs continue to expand, it appears been labeled as “criminals” for this behavior. ing on the need for “equal justice,” regardless that we will need to draw our POs from the Once labeled in this manner, people tend to of race or social class. Although community pool of undergraduate criminal justice majors, react by internalizing the negative label and corrections officers now represent “agents” of perhaps requiring some prior experience as living up to societal expectations by engag­ social control, conflict theorists would likely a police officer or corrections guard. Such ing in further criminal activities. Given the suggest that they would be more effective if “deskilling” is an inevitable consequence of the potential negative consequences of labeling, they became advocates for social justice in the movement away from treatment and toward we need to ask ourselves: (1) which laws do we areas of jobs, health care, housing, education, the technology of control. However, there really need to enforce? and (2) which offend­ and treatment. At the individual level, recent has been considerable discussion recently ers can (and should) we divert from the formal attempts to apply restorative justice concepts on the need to redesign existing community court process? to community corrections practice are cer­ corrections programs—both probation and In the last decade, we have seen the relax­ tainly consistent with conflict criminology parole/reentry—with a renewed emphasis on ation of laws (i.e., decriminalization) in some (see Wood, 2016). individual offender assessment and treatment states related to prostitution and marijuana (Taxman & Pattavina, 2014; Taxman et al., use, although the AIDS epidemic has fueled Conclusion 2005). To the extent that service provision/ fears about intravenous drug use and sexu­ treatment becomes a primary community ally transmitted disease, resulting in calls for The Link between Criminological corrections line staff function, upgrading the tougher legislation to “deter” both behaviors. Theory and Community qualifications of line staff will be critical to In addition, “diversion” is now an accepted Corrections Policy the success of community corrections as a practice for offenders with drug and alco­ A number of observers have suggested that people-changing organization. Regardless of hol problems (through drug court) in most probation and parole officers do not have an which direction we move toward, this review states, while dispute resolution through medi­ adequate “professional base” to do the job we has underscored the need for a discipline not ation (and restorative justice panels) is also ask them to do. However, it is our view that only with a rich theoretical “core,” but also with becoming popular, particularly in the areas it is impossible to assess the qualifications of a clearly defined professional base informed by of misdemeanor crime, divorce, and child community corrections personnel unless we high quality evaluation research. custody. Probation officers in many states are first clearly define the primary job orientation responsible for determining the eligibility of of the community corrections officer: Do we References offenders for various diversion programs, as want our line staff to emphasize treatment or Adler, F., Mueller, G., & Laufer, W. (2013). Crim­ well as for their operation. However, a number control? As we have indicated throughout this inology (8th ed.), McGraw-Hill Publishers. of observers have suggested that by develop­ article, how we answer the “why” (or causa­ Anderson, E. (2000). Code of the street decency, ing such pre-trial/pre-conviction diversion tion) question (Why did the offender commit violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton. programs, we are actually “widening the net of this crime?) will determine not only our gen­ Akers, R. (2006). A social learning theory of social control,” thereby exacerbating the nega­ eral orientation toward certain categories of crime. in F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), tive effects of being brought into the criminal crime (e.g., drug offenses, violent crime) and Criminological theory—Past to present (pp. (or juvenile) justice system. groups of offenders (e.g., sex offenders, gang 134-146). Los Angeles, Ca: Roxbury Press. Conflict theorists, such as Richard Quinney, members, drunk drivers), but also the types of Byrne, J. (2016). Smart sentencing revisited: As­ have argued that we need to focus our atten­ functions we will expect community correc­ sessing the policy/practice implications of tion on why laws are made. According to tions to perform. research on electronic monitoring and other conflict theorists, “Laws do not exist for the Some POs have Master’s degrees in Social intermediate sanctions, In T. G. Blomberg, collective good; they represent the interests Work and Psychology, while others have J. Mestre Brancale, K. Beaver & W. Bales of specific groups that have the power to get advanced degrees in public administration and (Eds.), Advancing criminology and criminal them enacted” (Quinney, 1970). Given the size criminal justice. A number of line probation justice policy. New York: Routledge. Byrne, J. M. (2013). After the fall: Assessing the of the black underclass and the overrepresen­ and parole officers only have an undergradu­ impact of the great prison experiment on tation of blacks and other minority groups at ate degree, while some have even less formal future crime control policy. Federal Proba­ each step in the criminal justice process (e.g., education. This diversity in educational back­ tion, 77(3), 3-14. arrest, conviction, incarceration), it has been ground would be a cause for concern if we Byrne, J. M. (2008). The social ecology of com­ argued that the criminal law has been used as could clearly establish a relationship between munity corrections. Criminology and Public a minority control mechanism in this country. education and the job itself. Unfortunately, Policy, 7(4), 263-274. The current preoccupation of federal and state we do not have a firm grasp on the types of Byrne, J. M., & Kelly, L. (1989: 34). Restructur­ legislators with the “drug problem” is a good skills necessary to be an effective probation ing probation as an intermediate sanction: example. We are willing to expand our prison or parole officer in the next decade. While An evaluation of the Massachusetts Intensive capacity in order to incarcerate urban street- a number of “get tough” intermediate sanc­ Probation Supervision Program (executive level dealers and users, but we are unwilling tions programs have been developed based summary of the final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC (85-IJ­ to adequately fund substance abuse treatment on classical assumptions about crime control CX-0036)). programs for these same offenders. Conflict (e.g., intensive supervision, house arrest, boot Byrne, J., Pattavina, A., & Taxman, F. (2015). theorists would argue that drug laws need to camps), these programs still include only a International trends in prison upsizing be enforced equally in urban, suburban, and small percentage (approximately 10 percent) of and downsizing: In search of evidence of rural areas. They would also demand other all offenders under community supervision. If a global rehabilitation revolution. Victims December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 25

and Offenders: An International Journal of Kubrin, C. E., & Stewart, E. (2006). Predict­ Loeber, R., & Jennings, J. R. (2014). Heart Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Prac­ ing who offends: The neglected role of rate and antisocial behavior: The mediating tice 10(4), 420-451. neighborhood context in recidivism studies. role of impulsive sensation seeking. Crimi­ Byrne, J., & Schultz, P. (2014). The effectiveness of Criminology, 44:165-197. nology, 52: 292–311. doi:10.1111/1745­ anti-social lifestyle change strategies: A rapid Kubrin, C. E., Squires, G., & Stewart, E. (2007). 9125.12038 evidence assessment. Prepared for Ministry Neighborhoods, race, and recidivism: The Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., & Cullen, F. T. of Justice, London: National Offender Man­ community-reoffending nexus and its (2016). Revisiting the criminological agement Service. implications for African Americans. Race consequences of exposure to fetal tes­ Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer- Relations Abstracts, 32(1):7-37. tosterone: A meta-analysis of the 2D:4D Loeber, M., Krueger, R. F., & Schmutte, P. S. Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared begin­ digit ratio.* Criminology, 54: 587–620. (2006). Are some people crime-prone? Rep­ nings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age doi:10.1111/1745-9125.1211 lications of the personality-crime relation­ 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Sutherland, E. (1939) Principles of criminology ship across countries, genders, races, and Press. (Paperback edition, January 2006). (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. As methods. Criminology, 32(2), 163-196. Lattimore, P. K., MacKenzie, D. L., Zajac, summarized in Sutherland and Cressey. In Cullen, F. T., Pratt, T. C. & Turanovic, J. J. G., Dawes, D., Arsenault, E., & Tueller, F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.) Crimino­ (2016). It’s hopeless. Criminology & Public S. (2016). Outcome findings from the logical theory—Past to present (2006, pp. Policy, 15: 1215–1227. doi:10.1111/1745­ HOPE demonstration field experiment. 122-126). Roxbury Press. 9133.12260 Criminology & Public Policy, 15: 1103–1141. Quinney, R. (1969). Crime and justice in society. Eysenck, H. (1987). Personality theory and doi:10.1111/1745­ Boston, MA: Little Brown. problems of criminality. In B. J. McGurk, Mackenzie, D. (2006). What works in correc­ Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. D. M. Thornton, & M. Williams (Eds.), Ap­ tions: Reducing the criminal activities of New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction publishers. plying psychology to imprisonment (pp.197­ offenders and delinquents. New York, N.Y.: Sampson, R. (1993). The community context of 224). New York: Wiley. Cambridge University Press. violent victimization and offending. In W. Farabee, D. (2005). Rethinking rehabilitation: Miofsky, K., & Byrne, J. (2012). Evaluation J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the Public Why can’t we reform our criminals? Wash­ research and probation: How to distinguish Agenda (pp. 259-286). Newbury Park, CA: ington, DC: AEI Press. high performance from low performance Sage. Gottfredson, M., & Hirshi, T. (1990). A general programmes. In D. Gadd, S. Karstedt, & Taxman, F., Shepardson, E., & Byrne, J. (2004). theory of crime. Stanford University Press. S. F. Messner (Eds.), The Sage handbook of Tools of the trade: A guide for incorporating Guarino-Ghezzi, S. & Trevino, A. (2014). criminological research methods (pp. 336­ science into practice. A monograph prepared Understanding crime: A multidisciplinary 357). London, U.K.: SAGE. for the Community Corrections Division, approach. New York: Routledge. National Research Council. (2007). Parole, desis­ National Institute of Corrections, Washing­ Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Uni­ tance from crime and community reintegra­ ton, D.C. versity of California Press. tion. Washington DC: National Academy Taxman, F., & Pattavina, A. (2014). Simulation Huang, C. & Vikse, J. (2014). War on poverty: Press. strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk needs Effectiveness of war on poverty programs Nagin, D. S. (2016). Project HOPE. Crimi­ responsivity (RNR) modeling for the criminal in the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: nology & Public Policy, 15: 1005–1007. justice system. NY: Springer. Rutgers University School of Social Work. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12263 Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime Jacobson, M. (2005) Downsizing prisons. New Petersilia, J. (2007). Employing behavioral and human nature. New York: Simon and York: NYU Press. contracting for earned discharged parole, Schuster. Kleiman, M. A. R. (2016). Swift–Certain–Fair. Criminology and Public Policy, 6(4):807-814. Wood, W. (2016). Editor’s introduction: The Criminology & Public Policy, 15: 1185–1193. Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can future of restorative justice? Victims and doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12258 electronic monitoring reduce crime for Offenders, 11, 1: 1-8). Kleiman, M. (2009). When brute force fails: moderate to high risk offenders? Journal of How to have less crime and less punishment. Experimental Criminology, 1:215-237. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Portnoy, J., Raine, A., Chen, F. R., Pardini, D.,