Comparing Patterns and Predictors of Immigrant ... - Springer Link

J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1914–1933 DOI 10.1007/s10964-013-0045-z

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Comparing Patterns and Predictors of Immigrant Offending Among a Sample of Adjudicated Youth Bianca E. Bersani • Thomas A. Loughran Alex R. Piquero

•

Received: 18 August 2013 / Accepted: 12 October 2013 / Published online: 23 October 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Research on immigration and crime has only recently started to consider potential heterogeneity in longitudinal patterns of immigrant offending. Guided by segmented assimilation and life course criminology frameworks, this article advances prior research on the immigration-crime nexus in three ways: using a large sample of high-risk adjudicated youth containing first and second generation immigrants; examining longitudinal trajectories of official and self-reported offending; and merging segmented assimilation and life course theories to distinguish between offending patterns. Data come from the Pathways to Desistance study containing detailed offending and socio-demographic background information on 1,354 adolescents (13.6 % female; n = 1,061 nativeborn; n = 210 second generation immigrants; n = 83 first generation immigrants) as they transition to young adulthood (aged 14–17 at baseline). Over 84 months we observe whether patterns of offending, and the correlates that may distinguish them, operate differently across immigrant generations. Collectively, this study offers the first investigation of whether immigrants, conditioned on being adjudicated, are characterized by persistent offending. B. E. Bersani (&) Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. A. Loughran Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. R. Piquero Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Results show that first generation immigrants are less likely to be involved in serious offending and to evidence persistence in offending, and appear to be on a path toward desistance much more quickly than their peers. Further, assimilation and neighborhood disadvantage operate in unique ways across generational status and relate to different offending styles. The findings show that the risk for persistent offending is greatest among those with high levels of assimilation who reside in disadvantaged contexts, particularly among the second generation youth in the sample. Keywords Immigration Offending Longitudinal Ethnic identity Assimilation

Introduction Few issues have incited greater dispute for as long a period of time than the immigrant-crime nexus (cf., Immigration Commission 1911; Chavez 2008), centered primarily around the belief that immigration is strongly predictive of increasing crime rates. As was true at the turn of the twentieth century, immigration continues to be met with much anxiety regarding the criminal proclivities of newly immigrating individuals (MacDonald and Sampson 2012). Yet, the image of the criminal-immigrant has yet to be revealed empirically. Instead, Lee and Martinez (2009) argue that sufficient empirical evidence has amassed to conclude that, at least in the US, immigration reduces crime. Despite this growing consensus, scholars continue to voice the need for research on the patterns and predictors of the offending behavior of immigrants (Mears 2001; Bucerius 2011; Lee and Martinez 2009). First, while immigration rates may not negatively impact crime rates,

J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1914–1933

the extent to which immigrant individuals are disproportionately involved in offending over their life course has yet to be fully understood. Second, despite the relatively low levels of offending among foreign-born, first generation immigrants, research continues to demonstrate a large intergenerational disparity in immigrant offending with involvement in crime increasing rapidly among successive generations of immigrants (Powell et al. 2010; Harris 1999; Bersani 2012; Jennings et al. 2013). Finally, some have cautioned against drawing strong conclusions about the relationship between immigration and crime noting unique complexities inherent to research on foreign-born populations that may obfuscate the immigrant-crime-reduction story (see e.g., Skogan 2006: 253–255). In this vein, many questions remain regarding the offending behavior of US immigrants. Despite mounting empirical evidence that immigration does not increase crime and that immigrants are not crime prone (Sampson 2008), public perceptions of an immigrant-crime problem persist. Why, then, is there a significant disconnect between rhetoric and empirical reality? One reason may be that ‘‘criminal-immigrants’’ are missing from existing data (cf. Horowitz 2001; Taft 1933), referred to as a data artifact (MacDonald et al. 2012). That is, because previous research examining immigrant patterns of offending utilize general population or community-cohort samples (see e.g., Bersani 2012; Sampson et al. 2005; Morenoff and Astor 2006; Powell et al. 2010), the most serious offenders, especially those who may or may not transition out of crime as adulthood approaches, may be missing or at a minimum underrepresented in previous analyses (Cernkovich et al. 1985; Laub and Sampson 2001; Maldonado-Molina et al. 2009) leaving this work open to the criticism that research has yet to adequately isolate and investigate the behavior of the ‘‘criminal-immigrant’’ (Horowitz 2001). As Horowitz (2001: 25) writes, ‘‘That most immigrants live within the law is neither disputable nor enlightening. Most native-born Americans aren’t criminal either.’’ Instead, attention should be levied at the subset of criminally involved immigrants. In addition, while research on immigration and crime has increasingly acknowledged the influence of heterogeneity in immigrant characteristics such as nativity, contexts of reception, and skills sets, less attention has been afforded to assessing potential heterogeneity in immigrant offending trajectories. Do patterns of offending among immigrants resemble the offending patterns observed among the general, non-immigrant population? Does a persistent criminal immigrant emerge in an offender-based sample? Criminological theories on life course trajectories of offending often lack a thorough discussion of potential variation by population demographics beyond gender; however, information gleaned from theories of immigrant

1915

assimilation are suggestive of a pattern whereby a small group of immigrants may be at risk of offending at a high rate and/or for a long period of time (i.e., the persistent offender). Before presenting the details of the current research, we begin with a review of the extant literature examining immigrant involvement in crime with a particular emphasis on research assessing generational differences in immigrant offending. We then discuss the theoretical frameworks that inform this research.

Immigrant Involvement in Crime Compelling evidence now exists challenging the oft-stated immigration-crime connection (see e.g., Martinez et al. 2010; MacDonald et al. 2012; Wadsworth 2010; Ousey and Kubrin 2009; Lee and Martinez 2009). While immigrant flows do not appear to pose a particular problem at least in respect to increasing crime rates, our understanding of individual-level immigrant involvement in crime is less clear. The story emerging from this nascent body of research sounds familiar and reveals that the foreign-born are less likely to offend than their native-born peers comparing general delinquent involvements, arrest, and incarceration experiences (Morenoff and Astor 2006; Butcher and Piehl 1998; Rumbaut et al. 2006; Sampson et al. 2005; Harris and Feldmeyer 2013; Harris 1999; Reingle et al. 2011; Jennings et al. 2013; Maldonado-Molina et al. 2011). These individual-level analyses complement existing aggregate-level research by allowing for an investigation into the effects of relational and contextual influences on offending. The broadening of focus to include an individual-level focus in criminology is an important one; while little aggregate evidence exists that rates of immigration influence rates of crime, some immigrants may bring with them, or be differentially exposed to, crime enhancing factors that would make them particularly prone to offending—questions better addressed with individual level analyses (Mears 2001). Moreover, from a logistical standpoint, current aggregate-level analyses are unable to speak to generational differences in offending largely because they lack country of birth information. Individual-Level Studies Examining Immigrant Involvement in Crime Despite evidence that foreign-born (first generation) immigrants have relatively low rates of offending, research also demonstrates that involvement in crime increases substantially across immigrant generation with rates of offending among the children of the foreign-born (second generation immigrants) mirroring those of the general

123

1916

native-born US population. For instance, research using the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) data has revealed markedly low rates of violence among first generation immigrants (Morenoff and Astor 2006; Sampson et al. 2005). The suppressed level of violent behavior quickly waned across immigrant generations with higher rates of violence among second (US born children of immigrants) and third (US born grandchildren of immigrants) generation immigrants. Moreover, further dissection of the first generation immigrant group revealed that an earlier age of migration and the more youth were enmeshed into the American mainstream (higher acculturation) was associated with a higher likelihood of violence (Morenoff and Astor 2006). Increasing duration of time in the US appears to be associated with greater involvement in offending. Evidence from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) suggests a similar pattern with respect to arrest and incarceration histories (Rumbaut et al. 2006). The CILS contains detailed immigration data from two traditional immigrant gateway locations: southern California and southern Florida. The authors find a significantly higher risk of arrest and incarceration among Mexicans in their sample; yet, for Mexicans and other represented ethnic groups, first generation immigrants were significantly less likely than their native-born counterparts to experience arrest or incarceration, once again demonstrating that time in the US, regardless of immigrant ethnicity, increases the risk for offending. This pattern of increasing criminal behavior across immigrant generations or time in the US generalizes beyond region or city specific data and is replicated in studies using nationally representative general population surveys looking at arrest histories (Butcher and Piehl 1998) and involvement in general delinquency (Harris 1999). Moreover, the noted generational disparity is also found in research looking at health and health risk behaviors (see e.g., Harris 1999; Powell et al. 2010; Gordon-Larsen et al. 2003; Harker 2001; Georgiades et al. 2013). Much of the knowledge on immigrant offending comes from cross-sectional research comparing, most often, the delinquency and criminal behavior of immigrants with their native-born peers. In the next section, we review the small but growing body of research aimed at studying immigrant offending longitudinally with a particular emphasis on research that adjudicates by immigrant generation. Immigrant Developmental Trajectories of Offending Very few studies have examined immigrant trajectories of offending longitudinally (Bersani 2012; Powell et al. 2010; Jennings et al. 2013; see also Sampson et al. 2005), and none have done so using a longitudinal sample of serious

123


youthful offenders navigating the transition between adolescence and adulthood. The lack of longitudinal work in immigration research is notable given the increasing importance in understanding not only relative involvement in crime, but also the onset, persistence and desistance patterns of offending (see Laub and Sampson 2003; Piquero et al. 2007; Blumstein et al. 1986). Below, we review the few relevant studies that inform this literature. Using data from the PHDCN, Sampson et al. (2005) found that net of a host of neighborhood controls, Mexican–Americans had lower rates of violence compared to Whites and Blacks. This difference is largely accounted for by the fact that Mexican–Americans are more likely to be first generation immigrants and to reside in areas characterized by high concentrations of immigrants. Powell et al. (2010) conducted a similar analysis using three waves of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) and examined average trends in nonviolent delinquency as youth transition from adolescence to young adulthood. In addition to immigrant generational status (i.e., first, second, third plus), the sample was disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Results revealed consistently lower rates of delinquent involvement among the foreign-born with the exception of first generation Asians. Two recent studies have more directly examined and tested for heterogeneity in the offending trajectories of immigrant youth. First, Bersani (2012) examined the differential involvement in crime across immigrant and native-born subsamples from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 survey. Using group-based trajectory analysis to assess the extent to which there was heterogeneity in immigrant offending, again, a pattern of significantly lower rates of offending throughout adolescence into young adulthood was found among first generation immigrants. Moreover, first generation immigrants were significantly less likely to be characterized by a highrate trajectory of offending compared to their peers. Despite the low criminal involvement of the foreign-born, rates of offending increased dramatically among the nativeborn children of immigrants who displayed a pattern of offending that mirrors their native-born American peers. Second, using arrest data, Jennings et al. (2013) examined offending trajectories from ages 18 to 50 years for 375 foreign-born and native-born Hispanic males. Once again, results demonstrated that the foreign-born were overwhelmingly characterized by a low-rate offending trajectory. In sum, the small but growing body of research examining the individual level criminal and delinquent involvement of immigrants demonstrates a consistent pattern whereby first generation immigrants are involved in a relatively low rate of offending whereas second generation immigrants offend at rates that approach or mirror their


native-born peers. Moreover, there is evidence from a small body of work suggesting that the forays into crime among the foreign-born are shorter in duration with desistance occurring more quickly and at a faster speed for first generation immigrants. In the section that follows, we discuss a prominent theoretical framework providing an explanation for the observed generational disparity in immigrant offending. We then draw upon elements from life–course criminology as a way to better understand longterm patterns of divergence in offending trajectories across immigrant generations.

Theoretical Framework for Understanding Immigrant Offending Segmented Assimilation Theory Whereas interest in understanding the criminal behavior of immigrants has grown in popularity, our understanding of the individual-level mechanisms that buffer and/or restrain immigrant involvement in crime is limited (Dinovitzer et al. 2009). Historically, theories of the immigration-crime nexus posited a link between immigrant concentration and crime mediated by the deterioration of informal social controls (Shaw and McKay 1942). Today, greater emphasis is being placed on understanding the factors that influence individual experiences as the foreign-born migrate to the US and how those experiences shape their behavioral trajectories. Understanding immigrant offending is complicated by the need to look beyond the criminal pursuits of the foreign-born to that of their descendants. In fact, much of the recent emphasis has been aimed at understanding the generational disparity in immigrant offending (i.e., the assimilation paradox) with explanations often highlighting the differential assimilation and acculturation experiences of the first and second immigrant generations (Portes et al. 2009; Portes and Zhou 1993). A particularly prominent view has been posed by segmented assimilation scholars positing that while first generation immigrants carry cultural traditions and norms with them as they migrate to the US, second generation immigrants face a duality of worlds caught between the traditions of the old world invested in by their parents and that of the American mainstream inhabited by their peers. As a result, the first generation is buffered from criminogenic influences whereas the second generation is confronted with negotiating their fidelity and belonging. Those able to balance the dueling demands and slowly absorb into the mainstream are more often than not characterized by traditional ascent up the social ladder of success. Yet, others who are less successful at finding a balance between the old and new worlds find themselves ascending downward—absorbing and assimilating into

1917

deviant countercultures that pervade the resource deprived communities they often reside in (Portes et al. 2009). Stemming from this framework is the expectation that assimilation and disadvantage will interact increasing the risk of experiencing detrimental outcomes, including crime, among the more assimilated residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Limited research has directly investigated the detrimental outcomes of assimilation in disadvantaged contexts. Using data from AddHealth, Xie and Greenman (2011) test the hypothesis that assimilation processes and outcomes are context dependent. Their results yield mixed support for the hypothesis. Youth with high levels of assimilation in non-poverty areas (i.e., census tract) had an increased risk of problem behavior; however this combination was also associated with an increase in positive outcomes including educational attainment and psychological wellbeing. The expectation that high assimilation and disadvantage would interact to product the most dire outcomes was not clearly borne out in the findings. The authors posit that, in response to their underprivileged and criminogenic environment, immigrant families living in disadvantaged neighborhoods may use adaptation strategies to actively refrain from fully assimilating, instead purposefully opting for a slower or selective acculturation process. Life-Course Criminology The life-course perspective draws attention to the importance of viewing the development of behavior across the entire life span (i.e., childhood, adolescence, and adulthood) and on behavioral continuity and change over time (Elder 1998; Sampson and Laub 1993; Laub and Sampson 2003) captured by the principle of life-span development (Elder et al. 2003). Particularly important for the current research is the recognition that while proximal factors play a key role in understanding individual development, influences and experiences occurring early in the life course leave an indelible mark on developmental trajectories across the life span. One potent factor encountered early in the life course is the place or context in which individuals reside and mature. Contexts differ in the extent to which they have access to institutional resources, culture milieus, the availability of social support networks, and collective efficacy, among other things (see Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000; Wikstro¨m and Sampson 2003; Mayer and Jencks 1989), influencing the availability of opportunities and experiences of those residing there (Elder et al. 2003). A growing tradition of empirical evidence demonstrates the influential nature of neighborhoods and the detrimental effects of disadvantage (see Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000). Speaking specifically to the literature aimed at understanding life course patterns of offending

123

1918

(persistence and desistance), it is expected that residing in resource deprived contexts, surrounded by criminogenic influences, would increase the likelihood of offending and would increase the extent to which individuals would become involved in crime and demonstrate persistence in offending over the life course (Moffitt 1994; Sampson and Laub 1997; Hagan 1997). Though not aimed at explaining immigrant patterns of offending specifically, Moffitt (1994) contends that residence in criminogenic environments plays a role in the higher rates and longer duration of involvement in violent crime among minorities and African Americans in particular. The higher probability of accumulating disadvantages in these neighborhoods results in a greater likelihood and frequency of offending, and once enmeshed in a chronic pattern of offending, a greater difficulty desisting from crime (Moffitt 1993; Hagan 1997). Growing up in a disadvantaged neighborhood and the increase in exposure to adversity and criminogenic influences often results in cumulative disadvantage that decreases later life opportunities for advancement and increases negative life outcomes (Sampson and Laub 1997). Empirical investigations are beginning to test the intersection of the individual and context to understand the lasting effects of growing up in disadvantage on offending. For example, using data from the Baltimore sample of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project, Piquero et al. (2005) tested for racial differences in the antecedents of life course persistent offending. While direct racial differences were not observed, the authors did find that the detriments of family and individual risk factors were magnified among African-Americans living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, a pattern they suggest accounts for a higher risk of life course persistent styles of offending among the disadvantaged African American population. Though limited research has examined the extent to which community factors influence pathways in criminality (Wikstro¨m and Sampson 2003), the findings from this study indicate that exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods may help explain divergence in life course offending trajectories whereby a small group of individuals persist in offending as they age. Assimilation and Disadvantage If we leverage and merge ideas from segmented assimilation with those of life course criminology, we can postulate that immigrants living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and thus exposed to criminogenic influences, will be at risk of high-rate and/or persistent offending. Implicit in this is the recognition that residential disadvantage brings with it a lack of institutional resources; however, in understanding differences in offending among immigrants, potentially more potent is the level of penetration of norms and values

123


held by deviant countercultures (Portes et al. 2009). This pattern will be more pronounced among those immigrants who are more assimilated into, and thus exposed to, the American mainstream. That is, disadvantage and assimilation are hypothesized to interact resulting in a greater risk of absorbing into a deviant counterculture (Portes et al. 2009) and of demonstrating persistence in offending (Moffitt 1994). Theoretically, the intersection of disadvantage and assimilation should be most consequential for second generation immigrants who, exposed to the American mainstream since birth, have higher levels of assimilation than their first generation peers1; however, first generation immigrants are not likely to remain completely immune to the detrimental effects of disadvantage. While many, and in fact most, first generation immigrants maintain strong ties to the traditions and orientations of their country of origin, research demonstrates that when exposed to deviant influences first generation immigrants may be at greater risk of experiencing deleterious outcomes compared to their native-born peers (DiPietro and McGloin 2012). In sum, alongside the growth of research examining immigrant trajectories of offending has been the growth of research aimed at understanding the protective and risk factors linked to immigrant involvement in crime, including assessing the influence of family processes, educational experiences and peer relations (see e.g., Bui 2009; DiPietro and McGloin 2012; Dinovitzer et al. 2009). Largely absent from this body of work is an investigation into the role of assimilation and acculturation experiences alongside and in comparison to traditional correlates of offending (Maldonado-Molina et al. 2009), including neighborhood context (Xie and Greenman 2011).

Current Research Despite a notable empirical base demonstrating a consistently lower rate of delinquent and criminal involvement among first generation immigrants with increasing criminal involvement among second generation immigrants, data limitations in prior research have restricted the systematic observation of patterns of offending among immigrants whose delinquent behavior has come to the attention of the criminal justice system. With this research, we bring together literature on immigration and crime, assimilation, and life-course criminology to examine the offending trajectories of high-risk, immigrant and native-born, 1

Immigrant generation is often used as a proxy measure of assimilation with the understanding that successive generations will have higher levels of assimilation (see e.g., Morenoff and Astor 2006; Rumbaut et al. 2006).


adjudicated juvenile offenders observed over 84 months as they transition into young adulthood. These data offer a unique opportunity to examine the longitudinal offending trajectories of serious adolescent immigrant offenders, alongside a similarly situated group of serious adolescent native-born offenders. Though remarkable for its consistency, it is important to note that the finding of relatively low rates of offending among the foreign-born emerged from research conducted with general population or community-based samples. Criminologists have long warned of the selective nature of these samples in that they often lack information on the most serious offenders or at a minimum contain very few of them (see e.g., Cernkovich et al. 1985; Laub and Sampson 2001; Elliott et al. 1986), an argument particularly poignant when examining the foreign-born (Mulvey et al. 2004). As Gottfredson (2004) notes, many first generation immigrants in the general population are likely to be selectively and consciously less criminally active because of, among other things, deportation fears. Rather, it may be that those most feared and vilified in general discourse aimed at the immigrant crime problem are more likely to be represented among those who come to the attention of the criminal justice system. We ask three interrelated and successive research questions. To situate our study in the extant body of literature examining the relationship between immigration and crime at the individual-level, we begin by plotting longitudinal patterns of offending within a sample of highrisk, adjudicated youth. By using a sample selected because of their adjudicated juvenile offender status, this research overcomes base rate problems in prior studies examining the offending behavior of immigrants using general population or community-based samples. Moreover, we assess whether immigrant status (first or second generation) acts as a risk factor for high rate offending and more specifically, examine whether the finding of a generational disparity in immigrant offending replicates in an offender based sample. Notably, we utilize official and self-reported measures of crime when comparing rates of offending, a rarity in previous research on the immigration-crime relationship. The reliance on official crime records in much of the previous research is potentially problematic due to the potential for bias in this data source (Hindelang et al. 1979); biases that present a unique challenge to research on immigrant offending. Some research has shown that immigrants suffer differential treatment in the process of the administration of the law (Hagan and Palloni 1999; Sellin 1938; Sutherland 1924 [1934]). As such, the crime committed by immigrants may be exacerbated in official reports. Conversely, some have questioned whether official data capture the majority of immigrant crime due to the underreporting of crime among immigrants (Horowitz 2001; Taft 1933). Based on this view, the crime committed

1919

by immigrants captured in official data may be a conservative estimate of their actual rate of criminal involvement. Notably, self-reported offending measures are also subject to their own list of limitations—especially regarding the reporting of serious offending (Hindelang et al. 1979; Kirk 2006). These concerns highlight the need for comparative assessments of immigrant offending using complementary measures of crime. We begin by asking: Is immigrant generation associated with the prevalence and/or frequency of offending? (RQ1). Does immigrant status act as a risk or protective factor for membership in specific offending trajectories? (RQ2). Next, we exploit the richness of the data and examine the effects of social context (neighborhood disadvantage), assimilation, and their interaction to understand better the divergence in immigrant offending trajectories. Specifically, couched in assimilation and life-course criminology frameworks, we ask: Do assimilation and disadvantage intersect to distinguish high-rate, persistent offenders? (RQ3).

Data, Measures and Methods Data This article uses data from the Pathways to Desistance study, a longitudinal investigation of serious adolescent offenders transitioning from adolescence to young adulthood. Participants in the Pathways study are adolescents who were found guilty of a serious offense (almost entirely felony offenses) in the juvenile or adult court systems of Maricopa County, AZ or Philadelphia County, PA. These youth were ages 14–17 at baseline. A total of 1,354 adolescents are enrolled in the study, representing approximately one in three adolescents adjudicated on the enumerated charges in each locale during the recruitment period (November, 2000 through January, 2003). The study sample is predominantly comprised of minority (41.4 % African American, 33.5 % Hispanic) males (86.4 %). Descriptive information regarding the sample is provided in Table 1. The data analyzed here were collected at six consecutive observational periods of six-month follow-up interviews (plus a baseline interview during initial inclusion into the study) over the first 36 months of the study. Thereafter, data were collected at yearly follow-up interviews for four more consecutive observational periods, resulting in a total of 84 months of follow-up as the youth transitioned into young adulthood. Follow-up rates at each subsequent observation period exceed 90 %, suggesting very low sample attrition. Information regarding the rationale and overall design of the study can be found in Mulvey et al.

123

1920


Table 1 Sample demographic information Mean

Median

Std. Dev.

Site (%) Philadelphia

51.7

Phoenix

48.3

Immigrant status (%) First generation Second generation

6.4 15.5

Gender (%) Male

86.4

Female

13.6

Race (%) White Black

20.2 41.4

Hispanic

33.5

Other

Immigration Status

4.8

Age at baseline

16.5

16.6

1.1

Age at first arrest

13.8

14.0

2.0

4.3

3.0

4.8

No. of prior petitions

(2004), while details regarding recruitment, a description of the full sample, and the study methodology are discussed in Schubert et al. (2004). Measures Official Reports of Arrest Officially recorded arrests (based on juvenile petitions in each jurisdiction prior to age 18 and FBI records thereafter) are assigned to a recall period based on the date of the arrest/petition as mapped onto the dates covered within a recall period. We have both a binary indicator and count of official record arrests by wave, where, as noted earlier, the recall periods from waves 1 through 6 correspond to sixmonth recalls, while waves 7 through 10 correspond to twelve-month recalls. Self-reported Offending Self-reported offending (SRO) was assessed using 22-items tapping into the prevalence and frequency of offending in each survey period. This measure is a revised version of a common self-reported delinquency measure (Huizinga et al. 1991) of the number of crimes committed including: (1) destroyed or damaged property, (2) set fire to house, building, etc., (3) rape, (4) murder, (5) shot at someone, (6) beaten up someone badly, (7) been in a fight, (8) beaten up, threatened or attacked someone as part of a gang, (9) entered/broken in a building to steal, (10) used checks/

123

credit cards illegally, (11) stolen a car/motorcycle to keep or sell, (12) prostitution, (13) stolen something from a store, (14) stolen a car/motorcycle to keep or sell, (15) carjacked someone, (16) taken something from another by force (with a weapon), (17) taken something from another by force (without a weapon), (18) bought/received/sold stolen property, (19) sold marijuana, (20) sold other illegal drugs, (21) drove drunk or high, and (22) carried a gun. These items tap into involvement in a range of aggressive (e.g., been in a fight; shot at someone) and income generating (e.g., bought/received/sold stolen property) offenses. Separate scores were computed for aggressive (violent) and income-generating (property) self-reported offending.

These data contain nearly 300 immigrant youth. Following convention in the immigration literature (Pew Research Center 2013; Rumbaut and Ewing 2007), we determine immigrant status using information on the country of birth of the youth and his/her parents. Second generation immigrants include respondents born in the US with at least one foreign-born parent (n = 210; 15.5 % of the total sample). First generation immigrants are those respondents born outside the US with foreign-born parents (n = 83; 6.4 % of the total sample). Because the vast majority of immigrant youth in these data are of Latino ancestry the results may not generalize to immigrants of other ancestries. The largest group of first generation immigrants in the sample is of Mexican ancestry (61.8 % of the first generation subsample) and this subset resides exclusively in Phoenix, AZ. Clearly Mexican immigrants dwarf other immigrant ethnicities in these data; however, this disproportionality corresponds with the general population trends whereby immigrants of Mexican ancestry comprise the largest proportion of immigrants in the US (Fortuny and Chaudry 2011). The second largest subset, those with Puerto Rican ancestry (26.6 %), is located exclusively in Philadelphia. Although Puerto Ricans are US citizens by birth, we follow precedent set in previous research which excludes them from the native-born US sample as they often experience many of the obstacles to incorporation that other immigrant groups face (see e.g., Hirschman 2001). Native-born youth refer to respondents born in the US with US born parents (n = 1,061). The majority of nativeborn youth are Black (n = 549; 41 % of the total sample), followed by White (n = 253; 19 % of the total sample) and Hispanic (n = 208; 15 % of the total sample), with a small group designated as ‘‘other’’ race/ethnicity (n = 51; 4 % of the total sample). The data contain two baseline measures used here to capture differences in assimilation levels. Similar to


immigrant generational status, measures of language fluency and a preference for an ‘‘American way of life’’ are commonly used as indices of assimilation and acculturation (see e.g., Rumbaut 1994; Landale and Oropesa 2007). For clarity, throughout the article we refer to these measures as ‘ethnic identity’ and ‘assimilation’. Previous research has shown ethnic identity and acculturation to be strongly related, yet distinct concepts, with increasing levels of acculturation into mainstream culture related to decreasing levels of ethnic identity (Cue´llar et al. 1997). Though we expect both measures to function similarly in the analysis picking up on nuances of the assimilation process, we assess their effects independently to allow for differences to emerge. Ethnic Identity First, sections of the Multigroup Measure of Ethnic Identity (MEIM) are used to determine an individual’s overall sense of ethnic identity (Phinney 1992) or sense of membership in and positive feelings toward one’s ethic group. In general, having a strong ethnic identity has been linked to favorable outcomes (Phinney et al. 1997; J. M. Lee et al. 2011) with evidence suggesting that the foreign-born have strong or high levels of ethnic identity that dissipates across immigrant generation (Cue´llar et al. 1997). Items from the measure assess feelings of affirmation and belonging (e.g., ‘‘I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to’’), and identity achievement (e.g., ‘‘I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs’’). For this scale, participants respond to 12 items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree,’’ with higher scores indicating greater ethnic identity. The composite score is the mean of the 12 items ( x ¼ 2:72, s.d. = .45). For the full sample, the measure shows good internal validity (a = .75). Assimilation The second measure comes from the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican–Americans-II (ARSMA-II; Cue´llar et al. 1995), which was adapted for this study to measure the adolescent’s cultural orientation toward Mexican and Anglo cultures. This instrument was only administered to adolescents who identified themselves as Mexican–American; as such the use of this measure, by definition, limits the sample to only those of Mexican ancestry. Though Mexican immigrants comprise the largest immigrant ethnic group in these data, this restriction does reduce our sample size. However, by focusing on the subset of immigrants of Mexican ancestry we isolate a group of immigrants who have been singled out as being most at risk for detrimental

1921

outcomes as a result of their educational deficits, persistent exposure to disadvantage, and historically rooted discrimination and stigmatization (Lopez and Stanton-Salazar 2001; Perlmann and Waldinger 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Hagan and Palloni 1999). The scale contains 48 items to which participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Not at all’’ to ‘‘Extremely often or almost always,’’ with higher scores indicating greater cultural orientation. Six subscales are proposed for the ARSMA-II: Mexican Orientation—general (MOS; e.g., ‘‘I enjoy speaking Spanish.’’), Mexican Orientation—Affiliation (e.g., ‘‘My friends, while growing up, were of Mexican origin.’’), Mexican Orientation—Language (e.g., ‘‘I enjoy listening to Spanish language music.’’), Anglo Orientation—general (AOS; e.g., ‘‘I speak English.’’), Anglo Orientation—Affiliation (e.g., ‘‘My friends now are of Anglo origin.’’), and Anglo Orientation- Language (e.g., ‘‘I enjoy English language TV.’’). Because we are interested in capturing the extent to which youth are enmeshed in the American mainstream, we isolate the Anglo orientation— general scale; youth with a stronger Anglo orientation are coded as being more assimilated. The composite score is the mean across all items ( x ¼ 4:04, s.d. = .55). The Anglo orientation scale has very good internal consistency at baseline (a = .78). Disadvantage The Neighborhood Conditions Measure was adapted for the Pathways study to assess the environment surrounding the adolescent’s home (Sampson and Raudenbush 1999). Items from the self-report measure tap physical disorder of the neighborhood (e.g., ‘‘cigarettes on the street or in the gutters,’’ ‘‘graffiti or tags’’), as well as social disorder (e.g., ‘‘adults fighting or arguing loudly,’’ ‘‘people using needles or syringes to take drugs’’). The scale contains 21 items to which participants respond on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Never’’ to ‘‘Often,’’ with higher scores indicating a greater degree of disorder within the community. An additional item is included to determine the amount of time the participant spends within his/her neighborhood where responses range from ‘‘None of my time’’ to ‘‘All of my time.’’ The composite score is the mean across all items ( x ¼ 2:35, s.d. = .75). The scale has excellent internal consistency at baseline (a = .94). Analytic Strategy Our systematic investigation of offending among a sample of high-risk immigrant youth proceeds in three stages moving from descriptive comparisons to more robust models that descript and distinguish patterns of offending heterogeneity. We begin by describing longitudinal

123

1922

patterns of offending frequency (rate of offending in each survey wave) from adolescence to young adulthood examining both official and self-reported crime. While our focus is on immigrant offending, we describe native-born offending patterns as a point of comparison. Second, we use a group-based trajectory modeling strategy to identify clusters of individuals who display similar patterns of offending over time (Nagin 2005), and we consider immigrant generational status as a possible risk factor for following different longitudinal patterns of offending. Third, we examine whether differences in assimilation experiences and disadvantage are associated with persistent offending. Finally, for purposes of formal statistical inference, we provide tests of all hypotheses with the exception of cases where immigrant subsamples are stratified by the 2X2 assimilation-disadvantage interaction. In these cases, where the reported small cell sizes lead to an unavoidable problem with statistical power, we focus our attention on the direction and magnitude of the relationships.

Results Average Rate of Offending To address the first research question aimed at investigating the similarities and differences in longitudinal patterns of offending (see RQ1), we begin by presenting average rates (frequency) of official reports of arrest, disaggregated by immigrant and native-born status (see Fig. 1). Among our group of serious adolescent offenders, rates of offending are clustered for all groups during mid- to lateadolescence, however we observe a notable divergence among first generation immigrants in the later waves of the study when respondents were young adults. Specifically, while offending rates are fairly consistent across all waves of the study for second generation immigrants and nativeborn youth, first generation immigrants demonstrate a clear reduction in offending over time.2 2

Some readers might wonder if the lower rates observed for the first generation subsample are merely a result of these individuals being locked up more frequently and, hence, incapacitated (e.g., Piquero et al. 2001). To investigate this possibility, we explored the mean percentage of time over each observational period that each subgroup was out of the community and incapacitated. We considered only stays in settings without access to the community (e.g., jail/prison; see: Mulvey et al. 2007). Initially, the first generation subsample has the highest mean percentage of time out of the community (*49 % of the time spent with no community access, on average) slightly higher compared to second generation (*44 %), native black (*42 %), and native Hispanic (*43 %), and considerably higher than native white (*35 %). However, these gaps diminish even more over time, and after 48 months, the first generation subsample actually has lower rates of incapacitation than all other subgroups, except for native whites, for the remainder of the 84 months follow-up. In other words,

123


Given the concerns levied at research relying upon official crime data to examine immigrant offending, we also assess average rates of offending using self-reported measures of crime. Notably, we continue to find a divergent downward trajectory of offending among first generation immigrants compared to their second generation immigrant and native-born peers, a finding that generalizes across measures of violent/aggressive behavior (Fig. 2a) and property crime (Fig. 2b). In this sample of adjudicated, high-risk offenders, we find that first generation immigrants have significantly lower rates of offending across data source (official or selfreport) and crime type (violent or property crime). Moreover, there is evidence that first generation immigrants begin to desist from offending at a faster pace than their peers, as well as evidence to suggest that by the end of the 84 month observation period, the offending rates of first generation immigrants are much lower than any of the other comparison groups. Conversely, second generation immigrants evidence a pattern of involvement in crime that is more similar to their native-born peers. While the finding of a generational disparity in immigrant offending patterns has been observed in general population samples (see Bersani 2012; Harris 1999; Powell et al. 2010), the fact that we find lower rates of offending among first generation immigrants, with higher rates among second generation immigrants, within a sample of serious juvenile offenders followed into early adulthood lends support to previous work. In the next section, we explore further the heterogeneity in self-reported offending patterns to investigate if immigrants follow a pattern of persistent offending and if so, whether immigrant generational status acts as a risk or protective factor for trajectories of offending (see RQ2). Immigrant Status as a Risk/Protective Factor for Trajectories of Offending Prior research with these data (Piquero et al. 2013) revealed that a five group solution best describes the trajectories of self-reported offending variety in this sample when fit over ages 14–24. (Note: The average posterior probabilities of group membership conditional on group classification for all of the five trajectories were very good, [.80). Because of the insufficient number of females available for trajectory-based analyses, the emerging solutions (and remaining analyses) were based on the male sub-sample only. For the full sample of males, this solution yielded a group following a low trajectory (37.2 % of the Footnote 2 continued these results imply that the lower rates of offending for the first generation subsample are most likely not due to this group being locked up and lacking opportunity to commit crimes.

J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1914–1933 Fig. 1 Average rate of official reports of arrest by immigrant and native-born status

1923 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 BL 6 6 12 12 18 18 24 24 30 30 36 36 42 42 48 48 54 54 60 60 66 66 72 72 78 78 84 mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo.

Fig. 2 Average rate of selfreported offending by immigrant and native-born status. a Violent/aggressive crime. b Property crime

First Generation immigrant

Second Generation immigrant

Native Born Black

Native Born Hispanic

Native Born White

(a) 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 6 mo.

12 mo.

18 mo.

First Generation Immigrant Native Born Black

24 mo.

30 mo.

36 mo.

48 mo.

Second Generation Immigrant Native Born Hispanic

60 mo.

72 mo.

84 mo.

Native Born White

(b) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 6 mo.

12 mo.

18 mo.

First Generation Immigrant Native Born Black

24 mo.

30 mo.

36 mo.

48 mo.

Second Generation Immigrant Native Born Hispanic

60 mo.

72 mo.

84 mo.

Native Born White

123

1924


sample) with a rate of offending approaching zero by age 19, an early desister trajectory (31.3 %) with high rates of offending in adolescence followed by a rapid decline through young adulthood, a late desister trajectory (10.5 %) with the highest rates of offending in adolescence followed by a steep decline throughout late-adolescence and early young adulthood, a moderate/stable trajectory (13.5 %) with a low but consistent rate of offending from 14 to 24 years of age, and a high persistent trajectory (7.5 %) with a continued rate of offending over the course of the study. We adapt this solution to test a key question posed in this research: whether immigrants disproportionately cluster in a high-rate persistent offending trajectory. To examine this question, we report the marginal probabilities of following each of the five trajectories conditional on immigrant status (Table 2). For this table, we ignore uncertainty in group classification and classify individuals as belonging to a respective trajectory group for which their posterior probability classification is largest. We consider the issue of uncertainty in group membership in more detail below. We find no observable representation of first generation immigrants in the highest persistent offending trajectory with very little representation of these individuals in the moderate offending trajectory. Most of the first generation subsample (82.5 %) is classified as either low or early desister. Thus, even among this sample, noted for its highrisk nature, first generation immigrants comprise a relatively low risk offender group. Moreover, we find evidence of a swift increase in offending across immigrant generations with the probability of being in a persistent offending group significantly greater for our second generation immigrants. For example, the marginal probabilities of group membership are quite similar between the second generation and the native born subsample for both the moderate (.123 vs. .142, respectively) and persistent (.088 vs. .079, respectively) trajectories. In sum, across the trajectories, clear differences emerge comparing between immigrant generations as well as comparing first generation immigrants to the native-born

Table 2 Marginal probability of group membership by immigrant status Trajectory

Total

Native born

1st generation

2nd generation

Low

0.372

0.383

0.460

0.287

Early desister

0.313

0.302

0.365

0.345

Late desister Moderate

0.105 0.135

0.095 0.142

0.095 0.079

0.158 0.123

Persistent

0.075

0.079

0.000

0.088

Total

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

123

sample. Whereas the likelihood of high-rate persistent offending is absent among first generation immigrants, second generation immigrants follow offending patterns, specifically persistent offending, similar to those of their native-born peers. The Intersection of Assimilation and Disadvantage Thus far, the results of this study provide strong individuallevel confirmation of previous research showing a buffering effect of immigrant status; an effect that wanes quickly within the span of one generation. Despite having established this generational pattern of offending, important questions remain regarding why there is a divergence in offending among second generation immigrants. Next, we draw upon theoretical insight gleaned from segmented assimilation theory and life-course criminology and test the proposition that assimilation and disadvantage intersect to increase the risk for persistent offending and whether this effect is conditioned by immigrant generational status (see RQ3). We first look at descriptive patterns of disadvantage, ethnic identity and assimilation across immigrant generation status. Mean levels of disadvantage are slightly higher for second generation immigrants compared to first generation immigrants (2.37 vs. 2.26, respectively), though this difference is not statistically significant at a = .05 (p = .32). Also, the second generation subsample displayed, on average, slightly lower levels of ethnic identity on the MEIM scale compared to the first generation subsample (2.84 vs. 2.89, respectively; p = .34). Further, first generation Mexican–Americans had, on average, statistically significantly lower levels of Anglo-orientation on the ARSMA scale compared to second generation Mexican– Americans (3.63 vs. 4.05, p \ .001). (Recall that higher scores on the ARSMA scale indicate greater assimilation, while higher scores on the MEIM scale indicate greater ethnic identity.) Taken together, these findings imply that second generation immigrants are, on average, more assimilated and to a lesser degree living in more disadvantaged contexts. Next, we examine the mean posterior probability of group membership into either of the two persistent offending trajectories conditioned on the assimilation-disadvantage classification. The mean posterior probability of group membership (i.e., the probability of belonging to a certain group j given an individual’s longitudinal vector of observations) is one of the three main output measures of the group-based trajectory model, along with the trajectory shape parameters and mixture probabilities (Nagin 2005). Using this as a measure offers the additional benefit of allowing us to account for uncertainty in group membership. Table 3 reports these mean posterior probabilities


1925

using immigrant generation as a measure of assimilation. Perhaps the most notable results are those that compare the relationships between the persistent offending trajectory and the first- and second-generation groups. Notice that membership in the persistent trajectory is very close to zero for the first-generation group, regardless of level of disadvantage. However, when comparing persistent group membership between the first and second generation subsamples, the probabilities increase dramatically—the mean probabilities are 8.75 times higher for those in the no disadvantage category (.004 for first generation vs. .035 second generation), though the base rates are still modest in either case, and 19.0 times higher in the high disadvantage category (.008 vs. .162). Furthermore, for the latter, the difference in means is statistically significant (p = .023). Also, within the second generation subsample the mean probability of membership in the persistent group is 4.5 times higher for the disadvantage group compared to the no disadvantage group, and this difference is again statistically significant (p = .002). These results suggest that there is an important interaction between generational status (assimilation) and disadvantage in persistent offending. Next, we consider the assimilation-disadvantage interaction with more acute measures of assimilation, specifically both immigrant generation and our measures of ethnic identity and assimilation. While this additional level of disaggregation results in a loss of power to test for significant differences, it is a strong test of the assimilationdisadvantage interaction hypothesis allowing us to confirm or refute the pattern noted above, which relied on immigrant generation as a proxy measure of assimilation. Table 4 reports 2X2 contingency tables for the classification of high and low levels of disadvantage with high and

low levels of ethnic identity (columns A and B) and assimilation (columns C and D). The marginal classification percentages for each are also reported. For each indicator, the median value was used to demarcate between high and low. Columns A and B show the results for the first and second generation subsamples, respectively, using the MEIM measure for ethnic identity. Columns C and D show similar results using the ARSMA assimilation measure, and hence are restricted to Mexican–Americans. It is important to note that the analyses using the ARSMA measure provide a more robust test of the assimilation by disadvantage intersection hypothesis for two key reasons. First, the measure more directly taps into assimilation and acculturation processes by capturing the extent to which immigrants are tied to or identify with an Anglo (American) orientation. Second, its restriction to those of Mexican ancestry means we isolate a group of individuals who have been branded as particularly crime prone (Hagan and Palloni 1999; Lopez and Stanton-Salazar 2001; Portes and Rumbaut 2001) and hence, most at risk for persistent offending. Among first generation immigrants, ignoring for the moment differences in neighborhood disadvantage, the vast majority report strong feelings of ethnic identity and high levels of assimilation (63.4 % MEIM and 72.9 % ARSMA,

Table 3 Mean posterior probabilities for persistent/moderate trajectories by immigrant generation-disadvantage interaction

High

Group

Disadvantage

No disadvantage

Ethnic identity

Low

p valueb All

First generation

Moderate

0.058 (n = 25)

0.080 (n = 37)

0.687

Second generation

Moderate

0.080 (n = 86)

0.179 (n = 85)

0.024

p valuea

0.644

0.099

First generation

Persistent

0.008 (n = 25)

0.004 (n = 37)

0.471

Second generation

Persistent

0.162 (n = 86)

0.035 (n = 85)

0.002

0.023

0.202

p valuea

Table 4 Ethnic identity/assimilation-disadvantage intersection by immigrant generation

Assimilation

Low

High

a

reports two-tailed p values for difference in means between 1st and 2nd generations, within disadvantage category b

reports two-tailed p values for difference in means between disadvantage category, within generation subsample

All

Disadvantage

A First generation Full sample MEIM

B Second generation Full sample MEIM

Low

0.207

0.201

High

0.159

0.191

All

0.366

0.392

Low

0.366

0.292

High

0.268

0.316

All

0.634

0.608

Low

0.573

0.493

High

0.427

0.507

Disadvantage

C First generation Mexican American ARSMA

D Second generation Mexican American ARSMA

Low

0.229

0.346

High

0.042

0.200

All

0.271

0.546

Low

0.417

0.177

High

0.313

0.277

All

0.729

0.454

Low

0.646

0.523

High

0.354

0.477

123

1926

columns A and C, respectively). The highest proportion of first generation immigrants falls into the cell capturing high ethnic identity and low disadvantage (36.6 %); however many of these individuals also have a strong ethnic identity and reside in areas characterized by high disadvantage (26.8 %). We also find that when restricted to the Mexican–American subsample (see column C), the highest proportion of first generation immigrants is found in the high assimilation and low disadvantage cell (41.7 %) followed by the high assimilation and high disadvantage cell (31.3 %). The lowest proportion of first generation immigrants is characterized by low ethnic identity or low assimilation and high disadvantage (15.9 and 4.2 %, respectively). The pattern observed in these data documenting strong levels of ethnic identity among first generation immigrants, particularly those of Mexican ancestry, as well as the complex association between ethnic identity and assimilation aligns with previous research (see Cue´llar et al. 1997). Notably, this pattern differs when looking at the distribution of second generation immigrants. Similar to their first generation immigrant peers, a majority of second generation immigrants in the full sample report high levels of ethnic identity (60.8 % MEIM, column B); limited to just the Mexican–American subsample, a slight majority of these individuals report low levels of assimilation (54.6 % ARSMA, column D). When considered by level of disadvantage, second generation immigrants are more generally distributed across cells with a very slight majority of the full sample characterized by high ethnic identity and high disadvantage (31.6 %) and the majority of the Mexican–American subsample characterized by low assimilation and low disadvantage (34.6 %). As with Table 3 where we examine the posterior probability of membership in our two persistent offending trajectories using immigrant generation status as a measure of assimilation, Table 5 reports these averages for both first and second generation subsamples considering both ethnic identity (full immigrant sample) as well as the assimilation (Mexican–American subsample) measures. Several results are of importance. First, notice that there is very little positive probability among either the full or Mexican– American first generation subsample to follow a persistent trajectory. This follows given the overall zero marginal probability of membership in the persistent trajectory reported above. Yet, membership in the moderate offending trajectory is more complex when conditioned on level of disadvantage and assimilation measures. Within the full first generation immigrant sample, the probability of membership in the moderate trajectory is highest for those who have a higher ethnic identity but reside in areas characterized by low disadvantage (.232). This finding corresponds with those reported by Xie and Greenman (2011), who observed that residence in non-poverty

123


neighborhoods was associated with increased problem behavior, as well as research noting a complicated relationship between ethnic identity and offending when considering contextual influences (Knight et al. 2012). Next, using the more conservative measure of assimilation and looking at the Mexican-American subsample of first generation immigrants, the probability of membership in the moderate trajectory is highest for those who are more highly assimilated and reside is areas characterized by high disadvantage (.270), followed by those who are highly assimilated and reside in areas characterized by low disadvantage (.163). This pattern of results suggests that higher levels of assimilation, at least for those of Mexican ancestry, may be detrimental with respect to high-rate offending for first generation immigrants regardless of context of residence. When considering the second generation subsample, an important pattern emerges. The probability of being in the persistent group is much higher for those residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods, regardless of level of ethnic identity (.197 for high EI; .143 for low EI) or assimilation (.172 for high assim; .137 for low assim), suggesting an important main effect for disadvantage for the second generation. Furthermore, within the high disadvantage categories, the probability of persistent membership is higher for those with lower levels of assimilation (high EI), suggesting there may be an important interaction effect between these two factors for second generation immigrants. Looking at the results for the moderate rate offenders the pattern is less distinct. The probability of membership in the moderate group for the full sample of second generation immigrants is greater for those residing in low disadvantage regardless of level of assimilation (.175 for high EI; .185 for low EI); however, when restricted to the subsample of MexicanAmerican second generation immigrants, the probability of membership in the moderate offending group is fairly equality distributed (with the exception of the low assimilation and high disadvantaged individuals). Again, we caution that the interaction conclusion is tentative; because of the small number of cases available for analysis in the respective subsamples and categories examined here we lack adequate power to conduct a robust empirical test of this conclusion. However, the patterns that emerge are indicative of an important divergence in trends when considering immigrant generational status, disadvantage, and assimilation and support our previous pattern of findings interacting immigrant generation with disadvantage.

Discussion Current immigrant flows have reached historic levels with the foreign-born population currently exceeding 12 % of


1927

Table 5 Mean posterior probabilities for persistent/moderate trajectories by assimilation-disadvantage intersection High EI High disadvantage (n = 11)

Low EI High disadvantage (n = 14)

High EI Low disadvantage (n = 12)

Low EI Low disadvantage (n = 25)

First generation—full sample Persistent

0.000

0.015

0.012

0.000

Moderate

0.042

0.071

0.232

0.006

High EI High disadvantage (n = 30)

Low EI High disadvantage (n = 56)

High EI Low disadvantage (n = 52)

Low EI Low disadvantage (n = 33)

Second generation—full sample Persistent

0.197

0.143

0.023

0.055

Moderate

0.089

0.076

0.175

0.185

High Assim High disadvantage (n = 3)

Low Assim High disadvantage (n = 14)

High Assim Low disadvantage (n = 10)

Low Assim Low disadvantage (n = 16)

First generation—Mexican American sample only Persistent

0.001

0.008

0.015

0.000

Moderate

0.270

0.033

0.163

0.074

High Assim High disadvantage (n = 26)

Low Assim High disadvantage (n = 31)

High Assim Low disadvantage (n = 40)

Low Assim Low disadvantage (n = 20)

Second generation—Mexican American sample only Persistent

0.172

0.137

0.035

0.016

Moderate

0.138

0.056

0.190

0.158

EI ethnic identity, Assim assimilation

the total US population and projected to reach nearly 20 % by 2050 (Passel and Cohn 2008). Coupled with these aggregate rates of immigration is the anxiety and trepidation levied at the immigrant crime problem which continues to reverberate in public discourse (Wang 2012). As MacDonald and Sampson (2012: 7) argue, ‘‘The changing character of immigration combined with the magnitude of recent increases has thus (re)stoked a high-stakes debate about America’s future.’’ Unfortunately, criminological research aimed at studying the relationship between immigration and crime at the individual-level of analysis and in a longitudinal manner has been hampered by data limitations, largely because obtaining detailed crime data containing information on immigrants is a difficult task. Accordingly, the current study took a step toward understanding further the criminal nature of immigrants by exploiting data on a sample of adjudicated youth containing criminal histories for first and second generation immigrants as well as their nativeborn counterparts followed for a total of 7 years. Arguably, the nature of the data available to examine longitudinal patterns of offending across immigrant groups, as well as the extent to which assimilation and disadvantage intersect to distinguish between distinct trajectories of offending, represent the most detailed portrait available of this issue. Our results produced several key descriptive and theoreticallyrelevant findings.

First, between adjudication and the 84 month follow-up, first generation immigrants evinced the most sizable dropoff in the average rate of both official and self-reported offending (property or violent) as they transitioned into early adulthood when compared to their second generation and native-born counterparts. The divergence in offending was more pronounced looking at official reports, though the offending patterns across crime data source are similar. Second, once distinguished by their longitudinal offending patterns, we found no evidence that first generation immigrants were characterized by high-rate, persistent offending styles, providing some evidence contrary to the view that high-rate offending patterns disproportionately characterize immigrant offending. Further, when assessing the probability of group membership by immigrant status, we found that over eighty percent of first generation immigrants were in the low offending trajectories. Conversely, second generation immigrants offending patterns map more closely on to those observed for their nativeborn peers once again establishing that, even among a sample of at-risk youth, second generation immigrants offend similarly to their native-born counterparts (Bersani 2012; Powell et al. 2010; Jennings et al. 2013). While first generation immigrants comprise relatively low rate offenders in this sample, it is important to remember that the criteria for inclusion in this dataset was the commission

123

1928

of a felony crime which by definition means that they too warrant serious attention. Though we lack the data to fully flesh out the reasons for this, the finding that first generation immigrants desist from crime at an earlier age compared to their peers may suggest that they are more easily deterred from further crime following criminal justice sanctions. Moreover, it may be that these individuals are more strictly sanctioned by their family and community— subjected to more informal social controls—that curb their forays into crime. Although these explanations are speculative, the findings are such that they warrant further theoretical and empirical attention. To better understand the divergence in offending between first generation immigrants and their second generation immigrant peers, we adapted ideas from segmented assimilation theory and life-course criminology and argued that the likelihood of persistent offending should be greatest at the intersection between high assimilation and high disadvantage. Using immigrant generation as an indicator of assimilation, our results support this hypothesis with disadvantaged second generation immigrants significantly more likely to be represented by a persistent trajectory of offending compared to their disadvantaged first generation peers and their non-disadvantaged second generation peers. Further specification of the assimilation side of the interaction revealed a more complicated picture. Calculation of the mean posterior probabilities for the two highest offending trajectories (persistent and moderate) conditioned on level of assimilation and disadvantage for the first and second generation samples revealed somewhat divergent patterns in regard to offending. First, regardless of the assimilation/disadvantage makeup, there was little positive probability among the first generation immigrant sample to follow a persistent (highrate) offending trajectory. However, among the first generation Mexican-American subsample, the predicted probability of moderately persistent rate of offending was highest among those characterized by higher assimilation conditions—regardless of the level of disadvantage. Assimilation differences rather than context differences appear to distinguish among first generation immigrant offenders. Second, among second generation immigrants, the probability of following a persistent (high-rate) offending trajectory was greatest among those with both high levels of assimilation and disadvantage, followed closely by those with high disadvantage and low assimilation. Context differences rather than assimilation differences appear to distinguish among second generation immigrant offenders. Finally, though we expected the ethnic identity and assimilation measures to function similarly, a much more complicated picture emerged once we considered contextual influences (i.e., disadvantage). Similar to Knight et al. (2012), the influence of ethnic identity

123


was varied across immigrant generation and neighborhood disadvantage, which may be due to developmental changes in ethnic identity over the life course (see Knight et al. 2013) not captured here. Given the relatively small sample sizes once conditioned on immigrant generation, disadvantage, and assimilation, these particular results should be regarded as tentative. Nevertheless, important, descriptive differences emerge comparing the relationship between disadvantage and assimilation across first and second generation immigrant subsamples. Most pronounced are the patterns observed for the influence of assimilation and disadvantage, separately, for each immigrant generation. Whereas different levels of assimilation appear to be better able to distinguish offending among first generation immigrants, residence in areas defined by disadvantage appears to be of greatest consequence for second generation immigrants. We find some evidence supportive of the proposition that assimilation and disadvantage intersect with high assimilation and high disadvantage associated with a greater probability of membership in more serious (persistent) offending trajectories. Before we discuss the relevance of our findings to criminology and parallel lines of work in other social sciences, it is important to outline some caveats with our data and analyses that pose some limitations to the generalizability of study findings. First, although we had a large sample at the outset of our investigation, the size of the immigrant subsample was not large and inhibited the investigation of some specific analyses—especially regarding interaction effects using the more acute measures of assimilation. Relatedly, one of these measures, the Acculturation Rating Scale, was only available for youth of Mexican–American ancestry. Second, because of sampling strategy, our sample focused on Hispanic immigrants. Lacking in these data—and in many data sources in criminology more generally (though see Crutchfield et al. 2006), are longitudinal offending data for different immigrant groups (Asians, Indians, Haitians, Cubans), as well as perceptual information regarding their ethnic identity, assimilation, and acculturation patterns (DiPietro and Bursik 2012). The extent to which these findings replicate for other ethnic immigrant groups is unknown. Also important to consider in subsequent analyses is the age at which first generation immigrants came to the United States as well as their reasons for immigrating. Finally, we acknowledge that there are weaknesses associated with using an offender-based sample, including most obviously its selective nature. Despite limitations, this study has important strengths. One key strength is that using an offender-based sample can help speak directly to the generalizability issues of previous research using general population and community based samples (see Decker et al. 1993). The theoretical


arguments assessed in the current study are not limited in their scope of sampling frame, and thus it is important to examine research questions across a variety of samples. A second strength of an offender sample is that respondents’ experiences may shed light on how such a group may deal with assimilation and acculturation issues; it may be that adolescents with ‘system’ experience interpret and navigate such issues in unique ways. Information on this front may also help to identify points of intervention should offenders have different problems as they assimilate into American society. In short, studying offenders provides one complimentary approach to assessing the extent to which the relationship between assimilation/acculturation and offending over the life course is a feature of adolescence and the US-immigrant experience more generally. With respect to theory aimed at understanding immigrant assimilation experiences, there remains a need to better articulate the process(es) that explain the higher rates of offending among second generation immigrants. As is the case with segmented assimilation arguments (Portes and Zhou 1993; Haller et al. 2011), perhaps these individuals experience more and/or different life events and pressures that increase the likelihood of offending. Our results demonstrate that potentially more consequential is the influence of context, or more specifically neighborhood disadvantage, in distinguishing among second generation immigrants who persistently offend over time. Alternative hypotheses (see Alba and Nee 2003; Perlmann and Waldinger 1997) explaining the higher likelihood of offending among second generation immigrants should also be considered. These theories argue that, born and raised in the US, second generation youth have simply become nativeborn Americans (Hagan et al. 2008; Zimring 2010), and consequently their involvement in crime is the result of the same factors that explain offending among typical nativeborn youth (Bersani 2013). With respect to criminology more generally, our results add an important descriptive piece of sorely needed information to the small knowledge base regarding longitudinal immigrant offending patterns. Considering an issue where information is largely driven by perception, empirical evidence documenting longitudinal patterns of offending is particularly consequential. As has been shown with general and community-based samples, even among this sample selected for its criminal involvement, no evidence is found that first generation immigrants display persistent patterns of offending (also referred to as chronic offenders or career criminals). Our findings relate well to previous criminological research, but also link better to the work in psychology and sociology surrounding ethnic identity, assimilation, and acculturation. Fields outside of criminology have considered perceptual issues in much more detail than criminology has, which raises the

1929

important point that criminological theories need to consider the importance of the immigration issue using a broad-based lens. Moreover, future research should consider whether the same theoretical processes articulated in ecological, general strain, self-control, social learning, and developmental/life course theories, for example, explain the differential offending patterns noted across immigrant generations. In sum, not only is it important to provide descriptive information about immigrant offending patterns, but there also needs to be some attention made by extant theories to consider ‘‘the conditions under which immigrants serve as a protective mechanism against crime’’ (Ve´lez 2006: 96).3 Our results also speak to a parallel line of work in health sociology as it relates to outcomes such as diabetes, obesity, and life expectancy among Hispanics who recently immigrated compared to Hispanics who have lived in the US for a period of time and have become accustomed to the food and lifestyle of native-born US citizens.4 For example, several studies show that the longer (Hispanic) immigrants live in the US, the more likely they are to adopt counterproductive health behaviors that are common to American life: smoking, drinking, high-calorie diets and sedentary lifestyles, all of which have worked in such a way as to increase health adversity and reduce the life expectancy of immigrants residing in the US and their successive generations (Tavernise 2013). Moreover, there are some indications in the health literature that second-generation Hispanics tend to also have worse health-related outcomes, i.e., higher rates of smoking and drinking as well as lower life expectancy, due, in part, to greater exposure to US cultural and social norms as well as cultural and behavioral assimilation more generally (Fenelon 2013; AcevedoGarcia et al. 2005; Gordon-Larsen et al. 2003). Clearly, the disparity in a range of behaviors across immigrant generations, and the rapidity in which problem behaviors emerge within the span of one generation, represents an important area if inquiry worthy of continued investigation.

3

Our observation here is reminiscent of a special issue of Advances in Criminological Theory, whereby noted theorists considered how the (at the time) emerging developmental perspective could enhance traditional theories of crime and delinquency, which were largely static in their explanation (see Thornberry 1997). With the exception of social disorganization theory, most theories of crime and delinquency do not deal with the role of immigration in general much less the differential criminal involvement across successive generations of immigrants in particular. 4 The findings reviewed in this paragraph are focused solely within the population of Hispanics and should not be considered as a comparison between immigrants compared to their American-born counterparts more generally.

123

1930


Conclusion

References

This is an exciting time to attend to immigrant related issues; data are slowly accumulating to permit criminologists to comment on some of the (mis-)perceptions associated with criminal offending in the US. As our analyses of a large sample of serious juvenile offenders followed from adolescence to early adulthood show, among those with early exposure to the criminal justice system first generation immigrants are not disproportionality involved in offending in general, or by crime type or method of measurement. That assimilation and disadvantage may help to better understand the conditions that may make it more or less likely that first or second generation immigrants become involved in low or high rates of offending serves to open additional areas of inquiry and to cast a call to theorists and researchers more generally to further attend to the immigration issue—one that is certain to occupy much of our collective attention in the years to come. Consideration of these questions is perhaps no better situated than within the adolescent period of the life course. Aside from the recognition that adolescence is mired in both excitement and turbulence (Steinberg and Morris 2001), how immigrants navigate this stage of the life course is of critical scientific study. It may be that their developmental experiences in their homeland are (or are not) unique (see Vazsonyi et al. 2006), and that adolescents are treated in ways that do not resemble similar experiences in America, with different life events marking culturalspecific exits out of adolescence and into early adulthood (quincean˜era). Studying how adolescent immigrants navigate these developmental and societal changes, while still holding onto their cultural and ethnic identities and not becoming enmeshed in negative behaviors, is especially important as they seek to advance educationally and economically within what could be, at times, a very foreign experience.

Acevedo-Garcia, D., Pan, J., Jun, H.-J., Osypuk, T. L., & Emmons, K. M. (2005). The effect of immigrant generation on smoking. Social Science and Medicine, 61(6), 1223–1242. doi:10.1016/j. socscimed.2005.01.027. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bersani, B. E. (2012). An Examination of first and second generation immigrant offending trajectories. Justice Quarterly, 1–29, doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.659200. Bersani, B. E. (2013). A game of catch-up? The offending experience of second generation immigrants. Crime & Delinquency, (forthcoming). Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (1986). Criminal careers and ‘‘career criminals’’. National academy of sciences panel on research on criminal careers (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bucerius, S. M. (2011). Immigrants and crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice (pp. 385–419). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bui, H. N. (2009). Parent—child conflicts, school troubles, and differences in delinquency across immigration generations. Crime & Delinquency, 55(3), 412–441. doi:10.1177/00111 28707306122. Butcher, K. F., & Piehl, A. M. (1998). Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(3), 457–493. doi:10.1002/ (sici)1520-6688(199822)17:3\457:aid-pam4[3.0.co;2-f. Cernkovich, S. A., Giordano, P. C., & Pugh, M. D. (1985). Chronic offenders: The missing cases in self-report delinquency research. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76(3), 705–732. doi:10.2307/1143519. Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Crutchfield, R. D., Matsueda, R. L., & Drakulich, K. (2006). Race, labor markets, and neighborhood violence. In R. D. Peterson, L. J. Krivo, & J. Hagan (Eds.), The many colors of crime (pp. 199–220). New York: NYU Press. Cue´llar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275–304. doi:10.1177/07399863950173001. Cue´llar, I., Nyberg, B., Maldonado, R. E., & Roberts, R. E. (1997). Ethnic identity and acculturation in a young adult Mexicanorigin population. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(6), 535–549. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6629(199711)25:6\535:aidjcop4[3.0.co;2-o. Decker, S., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: A research note. Criminology, 31(1), 135–147. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01125.x. Dinovitzer, R., Hagan, J., & Levi, R. (2009). Immigration and youthful illegalities in a global edge city. Social Forces, 88(1), 337–372. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0229. DiPietro, S. M., & Bursik, R. J. (2012). Studies of the new immigration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641(1), 247–267. doi:10.1177/ 0002716211431687. DiPietro, S. M., & McGloin, J. M. (2012). Differential susceptibility? Immigrant youth and peer influence. Criminology, 50(3), 711–742. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00273.x. Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998. tb06128.x.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2000-MU–MU-0007), the National Institute of Justice (199-IJ-CX-0053), the National Institute of Drug Abuse (RO1 DA019697-01), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the Robert Wood Foundation, The Center for Disease Control, The William Penn Foundation, The Arizona Governor’s Justice Commission, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. We are grateful for their support. The content of this paper, however, is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of these agencies. Author contributions BEB conceived of the study, assisted with the design and coordination, and drafted the manuscript. TAL participated in the design, interpretation of the data, and performed all statistical analysis. ARP assisted with the study conception, acquisition of data, and drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

123

J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1914–1933 Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). Berlin: Springer. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Morse, B. (1986). Self-reported violent offending: A descriptive analysis of juvenile violent offenders and their offending careers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(4), 472–514. doi:10.1177/088626086001004006. Fenelon, A. (2013). Revisiting the Hispanic mortality advantage in the United States: The role of smoking. Social Science and Medicine, 82, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.028. Fortuny, K., & Chaudry, A. (2011). Children of immigrants: Growing national and state diversity. Brief 1. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Georgiades, K., Boyle, M., & Fife, K. (2013). Emotional and behavioral problems among adolescent students: The role of immigrant, racial/ethnic congruence and belongingness in schools. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1473–1492. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9868-2. Gordon-Larsen, P., Harris, K. M., Ward, D. S., & Popkin, B. M. (2003). Acculturation and overweight-related behaviors among Hispanic immigrants to the US: The national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Social Science and Medicine, 57(11), 2023–2034. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00072-8. Gottfredson, M. R. (2004). Crime, immigration, and public policy. Report prepared for the Merage Foundation for the American Dream. Hagan, J. (1997). Crime and capitalization: Toward a developmental theory of street crime in America. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 7). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hagan, J., Levi, R., & Dinovitzer, R. (2008). The symbolic violence of the crime-immigration nexus: Migrant mythologies in the Americas. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(1), 95–112. doi:10. 1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00493.x. Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1999). Immigration and crime in the United States. In J. Smith & B. Edmonston (Eds.), The immigration debate: Studies on the economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Haller, W., Portes, A., & Lynch, S. M. (2011). Dreams fulfilled, dreams shattered: Determinants of segmented assimilation in the second generation. Social Forces, 89(3), 733–762. doi:10.1353/ sof.2011.0003. Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation, and adolescent psychological well-being. Social Forces, 79(3), 969–1004. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0010. Harris, K. M. (1999). The health status and risk behaviors of adolescents in immigrant families. In D. J. Hernandez (Ed.), Children of immigrants: Health, adjustment, and public assistance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Harris, C. T., & Feldmeyer, B. (2013). Latino immigration and White, Black, and Latino violent crime: A comparison of traditional and non-traditional immigrant destinations. Social Science Research, 42(1), 202–216. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.08.014. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1979). Correlates of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. American Sociological Review, 44(6), 995– 1014. doi:10.2307/2094722. Hirschman, C. (2001). The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: A test of the segmented-assimilation hypothesis. Demography, 38(3), 317–336. doi:10.1353/dem.2001.0028. Horowitz, C. F. (2001). An examination of US immigration policy and serious crime. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.-A., & Weiher, A. W. (1991). Are there multiple paths to delinquency? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(1), 83–118. doi:10.2307/1143790.

1931 Immigration Commission. (1911). Report of the immigration commission. U.S. Congress, Senate, 61st, (Congress. S. Doc. 750, Vol. 36). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2013). Offending trajectories among native-born and foreignborn hispanics to late middle age. Sociological Inquiry. doi:10. 1111/soin.12017. Kirk, D. S. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent lifecourse of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(2), 107–129. doi:10.1007/s10940-006-9004-0. Knight, G. P., Basilio, C. D., Cham, H., Gonzales, N. A., Liu, Y., & Uman˜a-Taylor, A. J. (2013). Trajectories of Mexican American and mainstream cultural values among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1–16, doi:10. 1007/s10964-013-9983-8. Knight, G. P., Losoya, S. H., Cho, Y. I., Chassin, L., Williams, J. L., & Cota-Robles, S. (2012). Ethnic identity and offending trajectories among Mexican American juvenile offenders: Gang membership and psychosocial maturity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(4), 782–796. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012. 00819.x. Landale, N. S., & Oropesa, R. S. (2007). Hispanic families: Stability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 381–405. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 28, pp. 1–69). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lee, M. T., & Martinez, R., Jr. (2009). Immigration reduces crime: An emerging scholarly consensus. In W. F. Mcdonald (Ed.), Immigration, crime and justice. Sociology of crime, law and deviance, Vol. 13 (pp. 3–16). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lee, J. M., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., & Knight, G. P. (2011). Identity-linked perceptions of the police among African American juvenile offenders: A developmental perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(1), 23–37. doi:10.1007/s10964-0109553-2. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309–337. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309. Lopez, D. E., & Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Mexican Americans: A second generation at risk. In R. G. Rumbaut & A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America (pp. 57–90). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. MacDonald, J. M., Hipp, J. R., & Gill, C. (2012). The effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–25, doi:10.1007/ s10940-012-9176-8. MacDonald, J. M., & Sampson, R. J. (2012). The world in a city: Immigration and America’s changing social fabric. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641, 6–15. Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Bird, H., & Canino, G. (2009). Trajectories of delinquency among Puerto Rican children and adolescents at two sites. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(2), 144–181. doi:10.1177/ 0022427808330866. Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Prado, G. (2011). Drinking and driving among immigrant and US-born Hispanic young adults: Results from a longitudinal and nationally representative study. Addictive Behaviors, 36(4), 381–388. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.12.017.

123

1932 Martinez, R., Jr, Stowell, J. I., & Lee, M. T. (2010). Immigration and crime in an era of transformation: A longitudinal analysis of Homicides in San Diego Neighborhoods, 1980–2000. Criminology, 48(3), 797–829. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00202.x. Mayer, S. E., & Jencks, C. (1989). Growing up in poor neighborhoods: How much does it matter. Science, 243(4897), 1441– 1445. Mears, D. P. (2001). The immigration-crime nexus: Toward an analytic framework for assessing and guiding theory, research, and policy. Sociological Perspectives, 44(1), 1–19. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.674. Moffitt, T. E. (1994). Natural histories of delinquency. In H. J. Kerner & E. Weitekamp (Eds.), Cross-national longitudinal research on human development and criminal behavior (pp. 3–64). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Morenoff, J. D., & Astor, A. (2006). Immigrant assimilation and crime: Generational differences in youth violence in Chicago. In R. J. Martinez & A. J. Valenzuela (Eds.), Immigration and crime: Race, ethnicity and violence. New York, NY: New York University Press. Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Chung, H. L. (2007). Service use after court involvement in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(4), 518–544. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.10.006. Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., et al. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 213–236. doi:10. 1177/1541204004265864. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ousey, G. C., & Kubrin, C. E. (2009). Exploring the connection between immigration and violent crime rates in US cities: 1980–2000. Social Problems, 56(3), 447–473. Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. V. (2008). US population projections: 2005– 2050. Social & demographic trends. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Perlmann, J., & Waldinger, R. (1997). Second generation decline? Children of immigrants, past and present—a reconsideration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 893–922. Pew Research Center. (2013). Second-generation Americans: A portrait of the adult children of immigrants. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003. Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as predictors of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(2), 165–185. doi:10.1023/a:1024500514834. Piquero, A. R., Blumstein, A., Brame, R., Haapanen, R., Mulvey, E. P., & Nagin, D. S. (2001). Assessing the impact of exposure time and incapacitation on longitudinal trajectories of criminal offending. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(1), 54–74. doi:10.1177/0743558401161005. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: New analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piquero, A. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Lawton, B. (2005). Race and crime: The contribution of individual, familial, and neighborhood-level risk factors to life-course-persistent offending. In D. Hawkins & K. Kempf-Leonard (Eds.), Our children, their children: Race/

123

J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1914–1933 ethnicity and crime (pp. 202–244). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Piquero, A. R., Monahan, K. C., Glasheen, C., Schubert, C. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2013). Does time matter? Comparing trajectory concordance and covariate association using time-based and agebased assessments. Crime & Delinquency, 59(5), 738–763. doi:10.1177/0011128712459491. Portes, A., Fernandez-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2009). The adaptation of the immigrant second generation in America: A theoretical overview and recent evidence. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 35(7), 1077–1104. doi:10.1080/13691830903006127. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74–96. doi:10.1177/0002716293530001006. Powell, D., Perreira, K. M., & Harris, K. M. (2010). Trajectories of delinquency from adolescence to adulthood. Youth & Society, 41(4), 475–502. Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2011). Generational differences in serious physical violence among Hispanic adolescents: Results from a nationally representative, longitudinal study. Race and Justice, 1(3), 277–291. doi:10. 1177/2153368711409061. Rumbaut, R. G. (1994). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, selfesteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4), 748–794. doi:10. 2307/2547157. Rumbaut, R. G., & Ewing, W. A. (2007). The myth of immigrant criminality and the paradox of assimilation: Incarceration rates among native and foreign-born men. Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center. Rumbaut, R. G., Gonzales, R. G., Komaie, G., Morgan, C. V., & Rosaura, T.-E. (2006). Immigration and incarceration: Patterns and predictors of imprisonment among first- and secondgeneration young adults. In R. Martinez Jr. & A. Valenzuela Jr. (Eds.), Immigration and crime: Race, ethnicity, and violence (pp. 64–89). New York, NY: New York University Press. Sampson, R. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7(1), 28–33. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 7, pp. 133–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 224–232. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651. doi:10.1086/210356. Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Losoya, S. H., Hecker, T., et al. (2004). Operational lessons from the pathways to desistance project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 237–255. doi:10.1177/1541204004265875. Sellin, T. (1938). Culture conflict and crime. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1914–1933 Skogan, W. G. (2006). Police and community in Chicago: A tale of three cities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110. Sutherland, E. H. (1924 [1934]). Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co. Taft, D. R. (1933). Does immigration increase crime? Social Forces, 12, 69–77. Tavernise, S. (2013). The health toll of immigration. New York Times. The health toll of immigration. (2013, May 19). New York Times. Thornberry, T. P. (1997). Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 7). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Vazsonyi, A., Trejos-Castillo, E., & Huang, L. (2006). Are developmental processes affected by immigration? Family processes, internalizing behaviors, and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(5), 795–809. doi:10.1007/s10964006-9104-z. Ve´lez, M. B. (2006). Toward an understanding of the lower rates of homicide in Latino versus Black neighborhoods: A look at Chicago. In R. D. Peterson, L. J. Krivo, & J. Hagan (Eds.), The many colors of crime (pp. 91–107). New York: NYU Press. Wadsworth, T. (2010). Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of the influence of immigration on changes in violent crime between 1990 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 531–553. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00706.x. Wang, X. I. A. (2012). Undocumented immigrants as perceived criminal threat: A test of the minority threat perspective. Criminology, 50(3), 743–776. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012. 00278.x. Wikstro¨m, P.-O. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Social mechanisms of community influences on crime and pathways in criminality. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 118–148). New York: Guilford Press. Xie, Y., & Greenman, E. (2011). The social context of assimilation: Testing implications of segmented assimilation theory. Social Science Research, 40(3), 965–984. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch. 2011.01.004.

1933 Zimring, F. E. (2010). Delinquency, opportunity, and the second generation immigrant puzzle. In R. Rosenfeld, K. Quinet, & C. A. Garcia (Eds.), Contemporary issues in criminal justice policy: policy proposals from the American society of criminology conference (pp. 247–249). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Author Biographies Bianca E. Bersani is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a 2012 W. E. B. Du Bois fellow with the National Institute of Justice. She received her doctorate in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of Maryland, College Park. Her major research interests include examining crime over the life course, desistance and persistence in offending, immigration and crime, and quantitative methodology. Recent publications have appeared in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Thomas A. Loughran is an associate professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. His research interests include offender decision-making, deterrence and methods for inferring treatment effects from non-experimental data. Alex R. Piquero is Ashbel Smith Professor of Criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas, Adjunct Professor Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice, and Governance, Griffith University Australia, Faculty Affiliate, Center for Violence and Injury Prevention George Warren Brown School of Social Work Washington University in St. Louis, and Co-Editor of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. He has received several teaching, research, and service awards and is Fellow of the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

123

Comparing Patterns and Predictors of Immigrant ... - Springer Link

Comparing Patterns and Predictors of Immigrant ... - Springer Link

Suggest Documents

Patterns and predictors of early recurrence in ... - Springer Link

Predictors and patterns of recurrence after curative ... - Springer Link

Patterns and predictors of osteoporosis medication ... - Springer Link

Patterns and predictors of early recurrence in ... - Springer Link

Predictors and patterns of recurrence after curative ... - Springer Link

Predictors for Patterns of Failure after ... - Springer Link

Conformal predictors - Springer Link

Predictors and outcomes of Mycobacterium ... - Springer Link

School Segregation of Immigrant Students - Springer Link

Patterns of dark - Springer Link

Comparing Respondent-Driven Sampling and ... - Springer Link

Comparing impedance cardiography and ... - Springer Link

Comparing Japanese, Australian and European ... - Springer Link

Comparing Regularized and Non-Regularized ... - Springer Link

Brazilian Immigrant Women's Narratives - Springer Link

Predictors of discontinuing exclusive breastfeeding ... - Springer Link

Psychopathological Predictors of Indirect Self ... - Springer Link

Predictors of mortality following symptomatic ... - Springer Link

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance predictors of ... - Springer Link

Brazilian Immigrant Women's Narratives - Springer Link

Patterns and Predictors of Language and Literacy

Effects of individual immigrant attitudes and host ... - Springer Link

Comparing recovering efficiency of immunomagnetic ... - Springer Link

Comparing aspirations: intercalibration of ecological ... - Springer Link