Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Immigrant Status, Offending, and Desistance: Do Relationship Characteristics Matter?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Though prior research has established the separate effects of romantic relationships and immigrant status on offending, few studies have combined these areas to assess how immigrant status may condition the effect of romantic relationships on crime. Further, fewer studies strive to uncover the potential mechanisms of the relationship effect.

Methods

Using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, this study examined the effects of relational quality, monitoring, and tolerance of deviance on later offending and if these effects differed among first-generation, second-generation, and native-born youth.

Results

While tolerance of deviance and monitoring were found to predict decreased offending among the second-generation and native-born youth, only tolerance of deviance predicted decreased offending for the first-generation youth.

Conclusions

Although there were no meaningful differences between the second-generation and native-born youth with respect to desistance mechanisms, relational monitoring was not associated with desistance among the first-generation youth. Relational quality was not associated with desistance for any subgroup. These findings have important implications for social control theories and suggest individual differences such as immigrant status may condition the effects of social bonds on offending. Potential cultural differences such as “familismo” may help explain these effects and are worthy of further consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Marital attachment refers to the general relationship between an individual and their spouse as well as their attitudes regarding marital responsibility ([2]:144; also [21]). Others have extended this definition and included additional relationship elements such as satisfaction, trust, and warmth (see [22]).

  2. Scholars differ on how they operationalize desistance with some measuring it as cessation of offending, while others focus on the process of decreased offending over time [68, 69]. Laub and Sampson [69] separated termination from the desistance process, and it is this process that we are interested in. Data limitations preclude us from examining desistance as termination though this is an important point for future research.

  3. To be included in the analyses, each case had to have been in a relationship at least once during a recall period; otherwise these data were missing for that case. Among the first-generation immigrants, 53 individuals had been in a romantic relationship at least once, representing 91% of all first-generation immigrants in the current sample. Further, 94% (n = 178) of the second-generation immigrants had been in a romantic relationship at least once, and 91% (n = 1012) of the native-born youth had been in a romantic relationship at least once. The final subsamples used in the analyses were reduced further due to cases missing data on other variables. Analyses for missing data revealed offending variety, ethnic identity, neighborhood disadvantage, and street time that were either missing completely at random or missing at random.

  4. The large majority of the samples (86.41%) were male. The modal racial/ethnic group was Black (41.43%), while 33.33% were Hispanic/Latino, 20.24% were White, and 4.8% was of another race/ethnicity.

  5. A Hausman specification test was calculated for each of the three relational dimension variables. In each test, the null hypothesis was rejected indicating that the fixed effects model would produce an improved model fit than a model allowing for the relationship dimension to have a random effect.

  6. The correlations with the control variables were also calculated and multicollinearity did not appear to be an issue as all correlations were less than r = 0.35.

  7. Some readers may be concerned about the relatively small subsample of first-generation immigrants (n = 53). Our power analysis indicated that a sample size of n = 38 would be required to detect statistically significant effects based upon our proposed model. Thus our sample size is sufficient in order to detect statistically significant differences. It is still a limitation, however, that the current study may not be able to detect smaller effect sizes which is an important point for future research. Nonetheless, we also estimated supplemental analyses that combined the first- and second-generation youth into a larger subsample (n = 231). These results were substantively the same as the second-generation immigrant subsample and are available upon request from the first author.

  8. A reviewer suggested assessing for potential differences in family attachment between the three generation groups. While we were unable to add these variables to the regression models due to power issues, we did calculate several one-way ANOVAs to assess the differences between each group on three family attachment measures: maternal and paternal hostility and parental monitoring. Specifically, first-generation immigrant youth were significantly more likely to have more parental monitoring and significantly less likely to have a father demonstrate hostility (the effect for the mother’s hostility was in the same direction but did not emerge as statistically significant). Taken together, these results support our argument that there are potentially relevant cultural differences across the generations that may help explain the differences in relationship characteristics. These supplemental analyses are available upon request.

References

  1. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.

  3. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues-the 2002 Sutherland award address. Criminology, 41(2), 221–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm: Background and recent developments. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 30). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Moffit, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ousey, G. C., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Immigration and crime: Assessing a contentious issue. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Piquero, A. R., Bersani, B. E., Loughran, T. A., & Fagan, J. (2016). Longitudinal patterns of legal socialization in first-generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and native-born serious youthful offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 62(11), 1403–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abbott, A. (1997). On the concept of turning point. Comparative Social Research, 16, 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63(2), 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nguyen, H., & Loughran, T. A. (2018). On the measurement and identification of turning points in criminology. Annual review of criminology, 1, 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen, F. R., & Jaffee, S. R. (2018). Using three-group propensity score method to estimate effects of relationship status and quality on men's antisocial behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 54, 88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. King, R. D., Massoglia, M., & MacMillan, R. (2007). The context of marriage and crime: Gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology, 45(1), 33–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., Piquero, A. R., Blokland, A., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2011). Marriage and offending specialization: Expanding the impact of turning points and the process of desistance. European Journal of Criminology, 8(5), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sampson, R. J., Laub, J. H., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36(2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kreager, D. A., Matsueda, R. L., & Erosheva, E. A. (2010). Motherhood and criminal desistance in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Criminology, 48(1), 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Craig, J. M., Diamond, B., & Piquero, A. R. (2014). Marriage as an intervention in the lives of criminal offenders. In J. A. Humphrey & P. Cordella (Eds.), Effective interventions in the lives of criminal offenders (pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1968). Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Maume, M. O., Ousey, G. C., & Beaver, K. (2005). Cutting the grass: A reexamination of the link between marital attachment, delinquent peers and desistance from marijuana use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Doherty, E. E. (2006). Self-control, social bonds, and desistance: A test of life-course interdependence. Criminology, 44(4), 807–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Angulski, K., Armstrong, T., & Bouffard, L. (2018). The influence of romantic relationships on substance use in emerging adulthood. Journal of Drug Issues, 48(4), 572–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). The impact of changes in family situations on persistence and desistance from crime. In D. P. Farrington, L. Kazemian, & A. R. Piquero (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental and life-course criminology (pp. 474–494). New York, NY: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barr, A. B., & Simons, R. L. (2015). Different dimensions, different mechanisms? Distinguishing relationship status and quality effects on desistance. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Forrest, W. (2007). Adult family relationships and desistance from crime. (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses.

  28. Simons, R. L., Stewart, E., Gordon, L. C., Conger, R. D., & Elder Jr., G. H. (2002). A test of life-course explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior from adolescence to young adulthood. Criminology, 40(2), 401–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bersani, B. E., & Doherty, E. E. (2018). Desistance from offending in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Larson, M., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). With or without you? Contextualizing the impact of romantic relationship breakup on crime among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 54–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Skardhamar, T., Savolainen, J., Aase, K. N., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2015). Does marriage reduce crime? Crime and Justice, 44(1), 385–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Herrera, V. M., Wiersma, J. D., & Cleveland, H. H. (2011). Romantic partners' contribution to the continuity of male and female delinquent and violent behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Massoglia, M., & Uggen, C. (2007). Subjective desistance and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(1), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McCarthy, B., & Casey, T. (2008). Love, sex, and crime: Adolescent romantic relationships and offending. American Sociological Review, 73(6), 944–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Simons, R. L., & Barr, A. B. (2014). Shifting perspectives: Cognitive changes mediate the impact of romantic relationships on desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly, 31(5), 793–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Umberson, D. (1992). Gender, marital status, and the social control of health behavior. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 907–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Owen, L. D. (2008). Romantic partners’ influence on men’s likelihood of arrest in early adulthood. Criminology, 46(2), 267–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.

  39. Hogan, M. J., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2005). Economic insecurity, blame, and punitive attitudes. Justice Quarterly, 22(3), 392–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bersani, B. E. (2014). An examination of first and second-generation immigrant offending trajectories. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bersani, B. E., & DiPietro, S. M. (2016). Marriage and offending: Examining the significance of marriage among the children of immigrants. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(2), 304–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bersani, B. E., Loughran, T. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2014). Comparing patterns and predictors of immigrant offending among a sample of adjudicated youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1914–1933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee, M. T., & Martinez, R. (2009). Immigration reduces crime: An emerging scholarly consensus. Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance, 13, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Martinez, R., & Lee, M. T. (2000). On immigration and crime. In G. LaFree (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: The changing nature of crime (pp. 485-524). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sampson, R. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts: Understanding people in their social worlds, 7, 28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95(2), 224–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jiang, X., & Peguero, A. A. (2017). Immigrant generations and delinquency: Assessing the relative effects of family, school, and delinquent friends. Race and Justice, 7(3), 199–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. DiPietro, S. M., & McGloin, J. M. (2012). Differential susceptibility? Immigrant youth and peer influence. Criminology, 50(3), 711–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2013). Offending trajectories among native-born and foreign-born Hispanics to late middle age. Sociological Inquiry, 83(4), 622–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Suárez-Orozco, C., Yoshikawa, H., & Tseng, V. (2015). Intersecting inequalities: Research to reduce inequality for immigrant-origin children and youth. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Waters, M. C., & Pineau, M. G. (2015). Family dimensions of immigrant integration. In National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine (Ed.), The integration of immigrants into American society (pp. 345–376). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  53. Landale, N. S., Thomas, K. J., & Van Hook, J. (2011). The living arrangements of children of immigrants. The future of children/Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 21(1), 43.

  54. Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 63–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. King, R. B., & Harris, K. M. (2007). Romantic relationships among immigrant adolescents. International Migration Review, 41(2), 344–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nesteruk, O., & Gramescu, A. (2012). Dating and mate selection among young adults from immigrant families. Marriage & Family Review, 48(1), 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Laub, J. H., Rowan, Z. R., & Sampson, R. J. (2018). The age-graded theory of informal social control. In D. P. Farrington, L. Kazemian, & A. R. Piquero (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental and life-course criminology (pp. 295–322). New York, NY: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Farrington, D. P., Kazemian, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Conclusions and implications for developmental and life-course criminology. In The Oxford Handbook of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology (pp. 749–756). Oxford University Press, USA.

  59. Brown, S. L., Van Hook, J., & Glick, J. E. (2008). Generational differences in cohabitation and marriage in the US. Population Research and Policy Review, 27(5), 531–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Qian, Z. (2013). Divergent paths of American families. Available: https://s4.ad.brown.edu/Projects/Diversity/Data/Report/report09112013.pdf

  61. Pew Research Center. (2010). The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Craig, J., & Foster, H. (2013). Desistance in the transition to adulthood: The roles of marriage, military, and gender. Deviant Behavior, 34(3), 208–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., Knight, G. P., Brame, R., Schubert, C. A., Hecker, T., & Losoya, S. H. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Losoya, S. H., Hecker, T., Chassin, L., & Knight, G. P. (2004). Operational lessons from the pathways to desistance project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sweeten, G. (2012). Scaling criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 533–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Monahan, K. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Investigating the longitudinal relation between offending frequency and offending variety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(7), 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bushway, S. D., Piquero, A. R., Broidy, L. M., Cauffman, E., & Mazerolle, P. (2001). An empirical framework for studying desistance as a process. Criminology, 39(2), 491–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pierce, G. R. (1994). The quality of relationships inventory: Assessing the interpersonal context of social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of Social Support: Messages, Interactions, Relationships, and Communit. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Solky-Butzel, J. A., & Nagle, L. C. (1997). Assessing the quality of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 339–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Pew Research Center. (2013). Second-generation Americans: A portrait of the adult children of immigrants. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bersani, B. E., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Examining systematic crime reporting bias across three immigrant generations: Prevalence, trends, and divergence in self-reported and official reported arrests. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(4), 835–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Fortuny, K., & Chaudry, A. (2011). Children of immigrants: Growing national and state diversity. Brief 1. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lee, J. M., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Ethnic identity and attitudes toward the police among African American juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., and Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARMSA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 17(3), 275–304.

  80. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Forth, A. E., Kosson, D., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Psychopathy checklist-youth version: Technical manual. New York, New York: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Osgood, D. W. (2010). Statistical models of life events and criminal behavior. In A. R. Piquero & D. Wesiburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 375–396). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London, UK: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1(1), 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  90. Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 655–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Calzada, E. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican families from low-income, urban communities. Journal of Family Issues, 34(12), 1696–1724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Oropesa, R. S. (1996). Normative beliefs about marriage and cohabitation: A comparison of non-Latino Whites, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49–62.

  95. US Census Bureau. (2017). Historical Marital Status Tables. Retrieved 2018 from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/martial.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Health and Public Service, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305130, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

    Jessica M. Craig

  2. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, 816 17th St., Huntsville, TX, 77341, USA

    Chris Guerra

  3. School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd. Mail Station 31, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA

    Alex R. Piquero

Authors
  1. Jessica M. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Guerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex R. Piquero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica M. Craig.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Craig, J.M., Guerra, C. & Piquero, A.R. Immigrant Status, Offending, and Desistance: Do Relationship Characteristics Matter?. J Dev Life Course Criminology 6, 67–94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00133-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00133-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation