Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Criminal Behavior Megan K

1
Scarlet Letters and Recidivism Does an Old
Criminal Record Predict Future Criminal
Behavior?Megan KurlychekUniversity of South
Carolina Robert BrameUniversity of South
Carolina Shawn BushwayUniversity of Maryland
2
Obstacles for Offenders

• Individuals with a criminal record encounter
  difficulties when they return to the community.
• Voting disenfranchisement.
• Restricted access to public housing.
• Reduced/terminated parenting and adoption rights.
• Ineligibiliy for student loans and grants
• Restricted volunteer and civic activities
• Obstacles to Employment
• Legal bars (armed robber cant work in a gun
  shop).
• Discretionary hiring rejections

3
Collateral Consequences of Criminal Records Have
Become Increasingly Severe in Recent Years

• Almost all states restrict voting rights for
  individuals with a felony conviction (Uggen and
  Manza 2002). The percentage of states
  restricting access to the polls is currently at
  an all-time high.
• Students convicted of drug-related offenses are
  barred from receiving federal financial aid
  (Higher Education Act of 1998).
• Drug-related felons experience restricted access
  to public assistance and food stamps (1996
  Federal Welfare Law).
• Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
  provides for restrictions on adoption and foster
  parenting for people with certain types of
  convictions.
• In 1996, an estimated 56 of large employers
  conducted criminal background checks By 2004,
  the percentage of large companies conducting
  criminal background checks rose to 80.

4
Reasons for Increased Reliance on Criminal
Background Screening

• Protection of property and preservation of a safe
  and orderly environment.
• Reduced risk of liability.
• Competitive market for employment or access to
  services - obvious reason to reduce size of
  applicant pool.
• Because they can improved technology, reduced
  cost.

5
Risk of New Offenses By Number of Prior
Offenses (1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort Males,
N13,160)
6
Constraining Influences

• Fundamental fairness sentence has been imposed
  by criminal justice system. Debt to society has
  been paid when sentence is served
• Behavioral outcomes redemption barriers may
  increase likelihood of recidivism and
  paradoxically decrease public safety.
• Laws - Wisconsin statute described by Pager
  (2003946) Employers are cautioned that crimes
  may only be considered if they closely relate to
  the specific duties required of the job, however
  shocking the crime may have been.

7
Unresolved Policy Issues

• What is a criminal record?
• How accurate are databases used for criminal
  record screening?
• Should evidence of rehabilitation be considered
  along with a criminal record?
• What level of access to juvenile records should
  be allowed?
• Consideration of ancillary criminal record
  information such as the number of
  arrests/convictions, the types of offenses in the
  record, or the amount of time that has passed
  since the last offense in the record.

8
Five Year Arrest Recidivism Hazard Rate Among
Offenders Arrested for the First Time at Ages
18-20 (N 805)
9
Research Questions

• Among individuals who have offended in the past,
  does the probability of committing new offenses
  decline as the time since the last offense
  increases?
• If so, does it decline to the point that it
  becomes indistinguishable from those who have no
  record of past offending?
• Simulates the situation of an employer who
  obtains an arrest record of a job candidate.

10
An Example

• Consider a group of individuals who have a prior
  record but the last entry in that record occurred
  at age 18 (Group 1).
• These individuals are now age 35. What
  proportion of them will accumulate a new entry
  this year?
• Now consider another group of individuals who
  have no prior record (Group 2).
• These individuals are now age 35. What
  proportion of them will accumulate a new entry
  this year?

11
Our objective is to understand whether

• (1) the risk of new criminal record entries
  (among those with prior records) drops with
  increasing time since the last entry and, if it
  does,
• (2) does that risk approach the level found
  among those with no record?
• Group 1 gt Group 2 - Persistence
• Group 1 lt Group 2 - Redemption

12
Two Studies

• Study 1 - Data from 13,160 males from the 1958
  Philadelphia birth cohort study (Tracy et al.,
  1985) followed through age 27.
• Study 2 - Data from 670 males from the 1942
  Racine birth cohort study (Shannon, 1982)
  followed through age 32.

13
Study 1 - Data Overview

• Sample of N 13,160 males from the 1958
  Philadelphia birth cohort study.
• Born in Philadelphia in 1958.
• Resided in city between ages 10 and 17.
• Includes history of police contacts for criminal
  offenses through age 17.
• Includes history of arrests for criminal offenses
  between from age 18 to age 26.
• No requirement that individuals reside in city as
  adults some individuals may have moved away and
  some may have been incarcerated for at least part
  of the period.

14
Descriptive Information

• Total N 13,160
• The majority of these individuals had no record
  of any criminal activity through age 24 (N
  8,043 61.1).
• A smaller but significant group of individuals
  had experienced police contact for criminal
  activities as juveniles (through age 17) but no
  adult arrests through age 24 (N 2,197 16.7).
• Last Arrest at Age 18 432 3.3
• Last Arrest at Age 19 341 2.6
• Last Arrest at Age 20 292 2.2
• Last Arrest at Age 21 361 2.7
• Last Arrest at Age 22 403 3.1
• Last Arrest at Age 23 497 3.8
• Last Arrest at Age 24 594 4.5

15
Probability of Failure at Age 25-26
16
Another Perspective

• Lets assume that juvenile offending records are
  unavailable and now consider two groups of
  individuals
• those who offend at least once at age 18.
• those who refrain from offending at age 18.

17
Hazard Rate

• Now, we follow both groups of individuals from
  age 19 through age 26.
• At each age, we ask the following question Of
  those who have survived this far without a new
  arrest, what proportion acquire a new arrest at
  this age?
• The answer to this question is given by the
  estimated hazard rate for that age.
• We are interested in whether the hazard rate
  declines over time for the age 18 offenders and
  whether it approaches the hazard rate for the age
  18 nonoffenders.

18
Hazard Rate Analysis Using Philadelphia Data

• N 13,160 Males
• Age 18 Offenders - N 1,009 (7.7)
• Age 18 Nonoffeners - N 12,151 (92.3)
• For each group, at age 19, we calculate the
  proportion of individuals who fail.
• For each group, at each age after 19, we
  calculate the proportion of individuals who fail
  among those who have not failed between age 19
  and that age.
• To sum up, we are interested in the following
  quantity Given a population of individuals who
  have not failed prior to a given age, what
  proportion will fail at that age?

19
Hazard Rate Trend for Age 18 Nonoffenders (N
12,151)
20
Hazard Rate Trend for Age 18 Offenders (N 1,009)
21
Hazard Rate Trend for Both Groups
22
Adult Hazard Rates for Age-18 Violent and
Non-Violent Offenders
23
Study 2 - Data Overview

• Sample of N 670 males from the 1942 Racine
  birth cohort study.
• Born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1942.
• Includes history of police contacts for criminal
  offenses through age 32.
• Offense prevalence rates are higher in Racine
  than in Philadelphia.
• Smaller sample size creates some obstacles
• Increases uncertainty about the estimated onset
  and recidvisim rates.
• Does not allow us to investigate the types of
  offenses (e.g., violent vs. non-violent).

24
Descriptive Information

• About 30 of these individuals had no contacts
  prior to age 25.
• About 26 had escaped contact with the police
  through age 27.
• About 18 (119) of these individuals had at least
  one juvenile contact but then had no further
  contacts between ages 18 and 24.
• About 15 (100) had at least one juvenile
  contact but no further contacts between ages 18
  and 27.

25
Probability of Failure at Age 25-32
26
Probability of Failure at Age 28-32
27
Hazard Rate Trend for Juvenile Offenders and
Nonoffenders
28
Hazard Rate Trend for Age 18 Offenders and
Nonoffenders
29
Hazard Rate Trend for Age 19 Offenders and
Nonoffenders
30
Hazard Rate Trend for Age 20 Offenders and
Nonoffenders
31
Hazard Rate Trend for Young Adult Offenders and
Nonoffenders
32
Conclusions

• Abundant evidence that access to criminal records
  is easier and less expensive than ever.
• Many unresolved issues about the boundaries of
  appropriate use of these records and the utility
  of imposing restrictions based on information
  obtained from them.
• One key consideration is the time that has
  elapsed since the last arrest or contact.

33
Conclusions (Continued)

• Our analyses of two birth cohort data sets
  suggest that older criminal records are
  significantly less predictive of future behavior
  than new criminal records.
• The Racine analysis actually indicates that after
  about 7 years, a criminal record provides little
  insight into the risk of new police contacts.