Lori Demeter conducted a study on 347 youth between the ages of 18 and 21 returning from
detention centers in 101 cities across the state of Massachusetts. The purpose of this study was to
assess neighborhood risk features of the community that the juvenile reenters post-commitment
and the possible effects these features could have on recidivism and offending patterns (Accessed
2018). According to Demeter, this reintegration period is a crucial time where youth are often placed
back into the same situations that influenced their delinquent behavior, where coming home could
mean exposure to social situations involving drugs, dysfunctional households, and opportunities
for participating in delinquent behavior (Demeter, Accessed 2018). Reintegration can be made more
difficult due to barriers like incomplete reenrollment documentation for school immunizations or
discrimination from community members or school staff or teachers, pushing youth further away
from their community [a known protective factor against recidivism] (Demeter, Accessed 2018).
Demeter’s study fills a gap in the research by shifting the focus from the individual barriers
for a successful transition back into society, to instead address the risks of the neighborhood
conditions and the role that these risks play in a youth’s successful reentry (Accessed 2018). Demeter
postulates that neighborhood patterns of illegal activity might also be influenced by factors such as
alcohol outlet density [anywhere alcohol can legally be purchased], availability of supportive
services, or youth opportunities to engage in prosocial activities (Accessed 2018). Demeter conducted
a quantitative, cross-sectional correlational study to examine the relationship of neighborhood risks
and rates of reoffending (Accessed 2018). Demeter’s preliminary research was based on the theory of
collective efficacy, where “neighborhoods with high levels of social cohesion and community assets
(libraries, schools and other learning centers, child care, organized social and recreational activities,
medical facilities, family support centers, and employment opportunities)- are better equipped to
contain individual risks for delinquency and youth violence” (Accessed 2018).
In addition, Demeter’s preliminary research was based on the routine activities theory which
looks at the circumstances in which offenders commit illegal acts as opposed to placing emphasis on
an offender’s personal characteristics, where the individual’s pattern of behavior influences the crime
location (Accessed 2018). Demeter looked at the availability of jobs, prosocial activities, schooling, as
well as, alcohol outlets and level of neighborhood risk [crime rate] (Accessed 2018).
For the purposes of this study, recidivism was measured as reconviction within one year of
release from a residential facility (Demeter, Accessed 2018). Surprisingly, the level of neighborhood
risks was not found to affect recidivism [although Demeter points to previous research that asserts
the opposite finding], neither does the availability of jobs – refuting the previously held notion that
unemployment pushes people to commit crimes (Accessed 2018). The most significant finding of this
study was that the availability of schooling actually increases the juvenile’s chances of recidivism
within the integration period (Demeter, Accessed 2018). Demeter points to the many challenges
that youths face in reintegrating into an educational institution to explain this inverse relationship,
namely educational neglect, learning disabilities, and poor school records (Demeter, Accessed 2018).
In addition, Demeter argues that confinement hinders youth’s ability to mature emotionally in
a way that results in the emotional stability necessary to deal with the challenges of the educational
system outside of the prison cell (Accessed 2018). Furthermore, when “youth with serious emotional
disturbance represent around 5% of a school population”, the educational system finds it challenging
to coordinate educational services with youth involved in the JJS (Demeter, Accessed 2018). Upon
reentering the education system, youth often face discrimination due to their previous incarceration,
labeling youth as potential criminals or bearing the stigma of educational deficiency among peers
(Demeter, Accessed 2018). Since youth are traditionally reintegrated back into the same educational
institutions they attended prior to commitment, the school might be apprehensive about reenrolling
students who have returned from residential placements (Demeter, Accessed 2018). Fortunately, with
prosocial activities present, juveniles are less likely to reoffend (Demeter, Accessed 2018).
49