No description available.

Part of the purpose of Justice Reinvestment Initiatives (JRIs) involve a focus of funds and effort toward implementing practices that increase the chances of successful reintegration of people recently released from incarceration. Similar to other jurisdictions, Oregon's JRI has taken a number of forms of reintegrative efforts. In 2016, JRI funding opened a services hub and reintegration/reentry center in a rural county. The Center offers a central location for reentry services, such as employment and housing assistance, but is not a requirement of an offender's supervision. Relying on the risk-need-responsivity framework, this program aims to reduce recidivism by mitigating barriers for offenders to access services offered by the county and to target and treat needs. The purpose of this study is to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the Center's effectiveness using propensity score modeling. Data used in this evaluation includes 1,727 people who visited the Center who were compared to 3,486 people from a historical sample by creating matching pairs. Post-matching, this was reduced to an even 1,669 offenders in each group. Further analyses such as binary logistic regression are used to further understand the differences between those who were able to visit the Center, and those from the historical sample who would have been equally likely to choose to visit, had it been available to them. Results show that visiting the Center does have a reducing impact on recidivism. Compared to offenders from the historical sample, those who were able to visit the Center reduced their odds of being rearrested by 80%, their odds of reconviction by 90%, and their odds of reincarceration by 99%. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on voluntary reentry programs and shows preliminary positive results to Clackamas County's Transition Center.

To date, the empirical literature exploring the effect of prior military service has focused almost exclusively on crime outcomes. There is extensive literature exploring the effect of prior military service on the likelihood of being arrested, sentencing outcomes, and sentenced to prison. However, there remains a lack of understanding regard the various effects of prior military service on prison misconduct and post-prison recidivism outcomes for released inmates. This dissertation adds to the literature on prison misconduct and post-release recidivism by examining the effect of military service, and among veteran inmates the effect of prior service in each of the four military branches, on offender misconduct in prison and recidivism outcomes. Using data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), the current study examines the effects of prior military service in comparison to release from prison with no prior military history for a cohort of 187,739 inmates released from Florida’s prisons between January 2004 and December 2011. Given the lack of empirical research surrounding this topic, an extensive analysis of the two groups (veterans and nonveterans), and analyses among veterans across the four military branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines), is conduct first in order to establish a basis for further analyses. Next, logistic regression, ordinary least squares (OLS), and survival analysis methods are used to examine factors that predict the effect of military service on prison misconduct and the likelihood of post-prison recidivism within one, two, and three years of prison release. Findings indicate that prior military service has an effect on prison misconduct and post-release recidivism. Theoretical and policy implications are also discussed. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester 2019. / April 18, 2019. / military, prison misconduct, recidivism, veterans / Includes bibliographical references. / William D. Bales, Professor Directing Dissertation; Maxine Deloris Jones, University Representative; Carter Hay, Committee Member; Patricia Y. Warren, Committee Member.

In response to public fears surrounding an anticipated rise in youth crime, several forms of punitive juvenile justice legislation were implemented during the “get tough” era of the 1980s and 1990s. In many jurisdictions, some of these policies involved the expansion of the mechanisms by which youth offenders could be transferred from the juvenile justice system to the adult criminal court. Scholars have theorized that the proliferation of juvenile transfer was largely intended to be a means of social control over Black and Hispanic youth, and previous research has reported that commonly-held conceptual associations between race/ethnicity and juvenile offending are connected to fear of crime and punitive sentiments. Further, prior studies have observed that minority youth are more likely than Whites to be transferred to the adult court and also receive harsher sentencing outcomes following transfer. However, little extant research explores how transferred youth are sentenced in the criminal court relative to adult offenders, and no prior study has investigated whether individual-level race/ethnicity as well as county-level racial/ethnic context might condition the effects of juvenility on sentencing severity such that transferred youth are disadvantaged. Using multilevel modeling techniques to analyze data on felony offenders sentenced in Florida circuit courts between 1995 and 2006, the present study first examines whether juvenile status is positively or negatively associated with a sentence to jail or prison as well as sentence length. Next, these analyses explore whether race/ethnicity as well as both race/ethnicity and gender condition the effects of juvenility on these outcomes such that Black and Hispanic transfers, and especially minority males, are sentenced particularly harshly. Finally, in light of the minority threat perspective, this study assesses the interactive influence of transferred juvenile status and county-level racial/ethnic population composition and growth on sentencing severity. Supplementary analyses are also conducted which examine whether the cross-level interaction effects between juvenility and static and dynamic racial/ethnic context are further conditioned by the race or Hispanic ethnicity of offenders. The results indicate that the independent effects of transferred juvenile status are mixed, and juveniles are more likely than adults of various ages to receive sentences to incarceration but receive shorter jail and prison sentences. Interactive relationships between race/ethnicity and juvenility are also observed such that Black and Hispanic transfers are especially likely to receive sentences to incarceration. Further, minority male transferred juveniles are penalized particularly harshly in sentences to jail. The findings regarding the conditional effects of static and dynamic racial/ethnic threat are somewhat inconsistent, but much of the evidence suggests that transferred youth are disadvantaged relative to adults in counties with a greater minority presence and, especially, minority population growth. Further, these targeted effects of county-level racial/ethnic context are found to be stronger among Black and Hispanic offenders than among Whites. Overall, the findings provide support for this study’s theoretical expectations and suggest that sentencing disparities between transferred juveniles and adults are closely connected to race and ethnicity. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester 2019. / March 5, 2019. / Criminal court, Juvenile transfer, Race and ethnicity, Sentencing / Includes bibliographical references. / Ted Chiricos, Professor Directing Dissertation; John Taylor, University Representative; William D. Bales, Committee Member; Carter Hay, Committee Member; Brian J. Stults, Committee Member.

Criminologists in the Positive tradition have long been interested in the effects of time-stable personality traits on offending. A large body of research now shows that a wide variety of traits (e.g., impulsivity, an angry disposition, callousness, and risk seeking) distinguish those who commit crimes from those who do not. Yet, very little of this work has drawn from comprehensive personality models, such as the Five-Factor Model. This is problematic because without these models, traits are studied haphazardly and with little understanding of how they come together to describe the criminal personality. Thus, the purpose of this dissertation is to advance scholarship on the personality correlates of crime by examining the relationships between the five major dimensions of personality (the Big Five) and offending. In addition to these main effects, the current study also examines mediating and moderating effects to understand how the Big Five affect offending and whether these effects are contingent on levels of criminal opportunity. To this end, data from the Pathways to Desistance Study—a longitudinal study of 1,354 youth adjudicated for serious crimes—was examined. Results from the analyses showed that (1) higher levels of Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Openness predicted less offending six months later, (2) these effects operated partially through moral disengagement (a measure of antisocial attitudes), and (3) the effects of Agreeableness were conditional on levels of criminal opportunity (i.e., time spent in unstructured socializing with peers and perceived neighborhood disorganization). The theoretical implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester 2019. / April 10, 2019. / Includes bibliographical references. / Carter H. Hay, Professor Directing Dissertation; Stephen J. Tripodi, University Representative; Jillian J. Turanovic, Committee Member; William D. Bales, Committee Member.

This dissertation examines whether there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of solitary confinement among pre-adjudicatory youth in juvenile detention centers throughout the state of Florida. In doing so it adds to the existing scholarship in the field of juvenile justice in addition to providing more information about the roles that race and ethnicity play in discretionary decisions throughout the American justice system. To this end, the presence of racial and ethnic disparities (i.e., whether racial and ethnic minority youth are significantly more likely than white youth to experience a given outcome) was assessed with respect to five outcomes: 1) the decision to place a youth in solitary confinement, 2) the number of times a youth was placed in confinement during a single juvenile detention stay, 3) placement in confinement that lasts 24 hours or longer, 4) placement in confinement within one day of admission to detention, and 5) placement in confinement within one week of admission to juvenile detention. Findings revealed evidence of racial disparity in only the first of these outcomes and no evidence of ethnic disparity across any of the five outcomes. Specifically, black youth had 68.8% greater odds of being placed in solitary confinement than white youth even after controlling for relevant predictive factors such as risk to reoffend. Overall, this suggests that, contrary to the equal treatment guaranteed by the American criminal justice system, race plays a significant role in the discretionary decision to place a youth in solitary confinement. Suggestions for alleviating such disparate treatment on the basis of race as well as implications for theory and directions for future research are discussed. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester 2019. / April 17, 2019. / Includes bibliographical references. / Jillian Turanovic, Professor Directing Dissertation; Stephen Tripodi, University Representative; Daniel P. Mears, Committee Member; Carter Hay, Committee Member.

The theoretical literature on courtroom organizations and focal concerns, in conjunction with social threat perspectives inform this contextual analysis and evaluation of determinate sentencing practices in the state of Florida. Drawing on prior theoretical and empirical research, hierarchical linear and generalized linear models are estimated to assess courtroom and community effects on individual level sentencing outcomes. This research investigates the direct effect of a variety of individual and case-level factors on the in/out prison and sentence length decisions for a sample of offenders (N=382,262) convicted in Florida courts from 1999-2002. The study also examines the direct and conditioning effects of theoretically derived contextual characteristics on the individual punishment decision. These contextual factors include features of the courtroom environment such as the size of the court, caseload pressure, and trial rates, and the broader community including race, ethnicity, concentrated disadvantage, and a variety of community level controls. The results indicate that location matters when sentenced in Florida. The likelihood of being sentenced to prison and the length of this sentence varies across counties, even after controlling for individual case and offender characteristics and a variety of contextual characteristics. Additionally, the influence of legal and extra-legal factors on the in/out and sentence length decisions varies significantly across counties. Several court characteristics, including the size of the court, caseload pressure and trial rate, and community characteristics, including racial composition, and a variety of controls all assert direct influence on a county's likelihood of in/out and mean sentence length decisions. The findings also indicate that several of the community and courtroom characteristics condition the effects of defendant and case factors on the sentencing outcomes – though often in the opposite direction than hypothesized. Overall, this research supports further development and the continued application of organizational theories to sentencing outcomes and questions the persistent reliance upon social threat measures as they are currently conceptualized in the sentencing literature. To advance both the current empirical and theoretical understanding of individual sentencing outcomes, future research must develop three-tiered models that adequately address the embedded nature of the courtroom within the broader community by applying organizational theories. The findings also highlight the need to supplement multilevel sentencing research with case studies in order to advance both the current empirical and theoretical literature. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007. / Date of Defense: November 2, 2007. / HLM, Multilevel, Context, Sentencing / Includes bibliographical references. / Thomas G. Blomberg, Professor Directing Dissertation; C. Aaron McNeece, Outside Committee Member; William Bales, Committee Member.

The consequences of the Era of Mass Incarceration in the U.S. have been well-documented throughout the criminological literature. Scholars have found that the effects of incarceration impact various social institutions beyond the justice system – for example, the workplace, the family, and communities. To date, however, limited attention has been given to the possibility that the effects of incarceration influence the school setting. The current study is an attempt to address this gap in the research literature. This dissertation is guided by Foucault’s (1977) “carceral continuum” thesis which suggests that the criminal justice system serves as a model for what is appropriate punishment and how that punishment should be administered. As the reach of this carceral continuum extends beyond the criminal justice system, Foucault (1977) argues that various societal institutions – for example, the school – are likely to adopt similar techniques and justifications to punish. This dissertation explores whether county-level incarceration rates and concentrated disadvantage are predictive of school punishment, particularly school suspensions. Specifically, this study examines whether higher county incarceration rates increase the likelihood of race-specific suspensions; whether higher county-level concentrated disadvantage increase the likelihood of race-specific suspensions; and whether the relationship between incarceration and school suspension is conditioned by concentrated disadvantage. To test these ideas, this dissertation utilizes data from several sources, including a random sample of Florida high schools and middle schools, the U.S. Census, the Florida Department of Education, the Florida Department of Corrections, and the Uniform Crime Report. Findings reveal that both incarceration rates and concentrated disadvantage increase the likelihood of suspension for all students; however, the effect of incarceration rates on the likelihood of school suspension is moderated by concentrated disadvantage only for Black students. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Summer Semester 2017. / July 17, 2017. / Concentrated Disadvantage, Incarceration, School Punishment / Includes bibliographical references. / Eric A. Stewart, Professor Directing Dissertation; Ming Cui, University Representative; Patricia Y. Warren, Committee Member; Thomas G. Blomberg, Committee Member.

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine factors that affect sentencing decisions of Latino and Haitian immigrants. Although scholarly research has consistently demonstrated that foreign-born populations are less likely than native born citizens to commit crime, many U.S citizens continue to believe that larger immigrant populations contribute to higher crime rates and other social problems. It is unclear whether these widespread public opinions about foreign-born populations translate into harsher punishment for immigrants. To date, only a few studies have explored punishment of immigrant populations in the criminal justice system, and there is a paucity of scholarly research assessing whether sentencing decisions vary across foreign-born groups. Using Blalock’s (1967) threat perspective, the study investigates the effect of immigrant threat on the sentencing outcomes of two sizeable foreign-born groups – Latinos and Haitians. Because Haitian and Latino immigrants have rapidly increased over the past few decades (U.S. Census 2010), there is strong reason to believe that salient fears among the U.S. populace towards them might shape the application of punishment. Previous criminological research has largely ignored immigrants’ differences which limits our understanding about how punishment varies across these groups. The data for this project are taken from the Florida Department of Corrections Sentencing Guidelines database and the Offender Based Information System, and they are appropriate for use in this study for several reasons. First, Florida is an excellent context for this research because it has a sizeable Latino and Haitian immigrant population that has substantially increased within the last decade (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Second, the Florida Sentencing Guidelines data includes demographic and legally relevant information about the current offense as well as prior criminal justice involvement on foreign-born defendants convicted of felonies. Additionally, the data contain records of the country of origin for each foreign-born defendant which allows for an analysis of sentencing decisions across two different immigrant populations. Finally, the sentencing guidelines provide a unique opportunity to extend sentencing research by assessing the complex ways legal and extralegal factors influence criminal sentencing outcomes. The contextual measures at the county levels were extracted from the U.S. Census Data and the Uniform Crime Report. Logistic and ordinary linear regression modeling techniques are utilized to explore the effects of immigrant threat on criminal sentencing. The results provide some support for the minority threat perspective, and its effect on the sentencing severity of foreign-born groups. It is the case that Latino immigrants are more likely to be sentenced to prison in counties a with larger foreign-born populations, and this effect is more pronounced in settings experiencing high levels of white unemployment. In contrast, the relative size of foreign-born populations and white economic disadvantage do not significantly increase the probability of Haitian immigrants receiving prison sentences. However, the multiplicative models suggest that it does affect their prison sentence lengths. Haitians tend to serve longer prison sentences in counties with a larger percentage of immigrants, which are shaped by high levels of economically disadvantaged whites. The findings show that both perceived immigrant and economic threat are salient in the processing of immigrants in the criminal justice system. The theoretical, and policy implications of the findings are discussed. The dissertation concludes by highlighting limitations of this study and providing recommendations for future research. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Summer Semester 2017. / July 17, 2017. / Haitians, Immigrants, Latinos, Sentencing Outcomes / Includes bibliographical references. / Patricia Y. Warren Hightower, Professor Directing Dissertation; Patrice Iatarola, University Representative; Eric A. Stewart, Committee Member; William Bales, Committee Member.

Situation of Families of prisoners