Upload
duongquynh
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Education and Youth Crime:
A review of the Empirical Literature
Iryna Rud, Chris van Klaveren e.a.
TIER WORKING PAPER SERIES
TIER WP 13/06
1
Education and Youth Crime: a Review of the Empirical Literature
Iryna Rud, Chris Van Klaveren, Wim Groot, Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink1
Abstract
This paper provides a systematic literature review on the relationship between education and
criminal behavior of young people, using the Technology of Skill Formation (Cunha &
Heckman, 2007) as a theoretical framework. The nature of youth crime is different than the
nature of adult crime. We analyze studies that evaluate childhood and adolescence
interventions and studies that examine the effects between education and criminal behavior of
young people. The former suggests a link between education and youth crime. The latter
shows that education reduces the probability of criminal behavior in adolescence and young
adulthood, whereas early criminal involvement is likely to have a negative impact on
educational attainment. The underlying mechanisms of these effects are generally not
identified and can combine different components, such as incapacitation effects, skill
acquisition and peer effects.
JEL-classification: I21, I28, I29, K14, K49.
Keywords: education; criminal behavior; interventions; youth; causal evidence.
1 All authors are affiliated with The Top Institute for Evidence Based Education Research, TIER, Maastricht
University, P.O. BOX 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail address of the corresponding author:
2
1. Introduction
Early school leaving and criminal behavior of young people are two important concerns in
every community as they can result in individual and public losses. School dropout is
associated with lower economic growth, youth unemployment, decreases in gross income and
with higher crime rates as well (see Psacharapoulos, 2007). Crime can also increase the
unemployment rate of the community (Calvó-Armengol & Zenou, 2003) and have a negative
impact on economic growth in the region (Detotto & Otranto, 2010). Crime generates
substantial social costs, through criminal justice system spending, security expenditures, costs
to repair damages, victimization costs and health services costs. Criminals themselves face
costs associated with criminal charges, can suffer from social stigma or social exclusion
(Hannon, 2003), and experience a decline in earnings and employment following an arrest or
imprisonment (see Lochner, 2004).
Criminal behavior in adolescence can have strong links to future negative outcomes,
among them adult crime, low academic performance and early school leaving. At the same
time, school dropout can encourage juveniles to become involved in criminal behavior. From
the one hand, lower educational attainment and criminal involvement can develop a dynamic
interrelationship. From the other hand, many mutual confounding factors can determine both
education and criminal behavior and it can be difficult to isolate a single chain of causality.
Insight in how education and youth crime is casually related may indicate possible measures
to reduce crime and educational inequality in society.
The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive and unambiguous literature
review on the relationship between education and criminal behavior of young people. The
terms “youth”, “young people”, “adolescents” and “juveniles” are used here interchangeably.
The concept of education is used in its broad sense and, depending on the context, can refer to
educational attainment, school attendance and academic performance. Finally, youth crime
refers to any interactions with the criminal justice system as a result of criminal behavior, and
can also mean antisocial or risky behavior of juveniles such as substance abuse and
precocious sexual behavior.
We discuss how education and youth crime can relate to each other from a theoretical
and empirical perspective. The Technology of Skill Formation serves as a theoretical
framework to analyze this relationship. This theory captures all main approaches that
underline criminal behavior. Empirical studies on early childhood interventions, interventions
in early school age, and adolescence interventions provide evidence on programs that aim to
3
improve education and prevent or reduce criminal behavior of young people. The empirical
literature that examines the effects between education and youth crime provides further
insights into this relationship.
The contribution of this study is twofold. First, it documents and analyses the existing
evidence on the relationship between education and criminal behavior of young people. Most
previous studies in this field have focused on examining the effects of education on criminal
behavior of adults. We note that the nature of youth crime and adult crime can be different.
Preventing crime in adolescence may have an impact that lasts throughout adulthood,
including behavioral and educational outcomes.
Causal evidence on the relationship between education and youth crime is especially
important from a policy perspective. To develop effective policies aimed at reducing school
dropout and youth crime rates, it is crucial to rely on causal evidence. Therefore, as the
second contribution, we attempt to distinguish between causal and correlational studies that
analyze the relationship between education and youth crime.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the nature of youth crime.
Section 3 provides a theoretical basis underlying criminal behavior in a relationship to
education. Section 4 outlines the search strategy and selection criteria of empirical studies
used in this review. Section 5 describes childhood interventions, interventions in early school
age and adolescence interventions and their effects on educational and criminal behavior
outcomes. Section 6 discusses empirical studies that examine the effects between education
and youth crime. Finally, Section 7 sums up the findings of this study and provides
suggestions for future research.
2. The nature of youth crime
The age-crime curve shows that the peak age of criminal behavior is in adolescence, between
age of 15 and 19 (Farrington, 1986; Piquero et al. 2007; Bosick, 2009). Young people
involved in criminal behavior in adolescence are usually dealt with in juvenile justice system
(see Goldson and Muncie, 2006; Loeber et al., 2013).
The vast majority of existing studies on the relationship between education and crime
do not consider differences between age groups, and have a mixed-age research population.
However, and as is shown below, youth crime can differ from adult crime in several respects,
and therefore its relationship to education might be also different.
First of all, young people appear to be involved in a greater variety of criminal
behavior, but also less serious and less sophisticated crime, compared to adults (Junger-Tas et
4
al., 2010). For example, the most frequent arrests among U.S. youth are for minor crimes
against property, vandalism, drugs dealing, disorderly conduct, and obstruction of justice
(Puzzanchera et al., 2010). In European countries, group fighting, carrying weapons, drugs
dealing, shoplifting, vandalism and computer hacking predominate (Junger-Tas et al., 2009).
Secondly, young people and adults can differ in their motivation to exhibit offending
behavior. In accordance with the economic theory, adults have an economic interest to be
engaged in crime (see Becker, 1968; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Lochner, 2011). Although
adolescents tend to report that the main motivation of their criminal involvement is gaining
economic and financial benefits, there are many other reasons of their criminal behavior, such
as, enjoyment, excitement, entertainment and pleasure (Goldson & Muncie, 2006; Farrington,
2001). Luallen (2006) considers that mischief crimes committed by juveniles “often result
from boredom rather than calculated criminal thought” (p. 88). Similarly, Scitovsky (1999)
believes that violence in school largely occurs due to feelings of boredom and a lack of
activities at school. Peer group pressure, mood swings, and lack of reflection on emotional
situations are significant factors that can stimulate offending behavior of juveniles (McCord et
al., 2001). Finally, a criminal act is frequently viewed by young people as a risk-taking
adventure that gives offenders status and particular respect within their group of peers
(Cohen, 1955).
The third distinct aspect of youth crime is that adolescents are relatively more likely to
commit crime with others or in groups compared to adults (see Zimring, 1981; Greenwood,
1995; Reiss, 1988). In contrast to adult criminal associations, groups of juvenile offenders are
typically formed by territorial affiliation, and they are usually random and less stable over
time (Reiss, 1988). Therefore, social interactions at school and on the street seem to have a
great impact on behavior of young people. Juveniles are more likely to co-offend with
individuals of the same gender and the same age group compared to adults (Reiss, 1988).
Similar to adult crime, young males participate in criminal activities more often than young
females (Levitt & Lochner, 2001).
Finally, the timing of youth crime varies with the type of offence (see Gottfredson &
Soulé, 2005; Taylor-Butts, 2010). Police-reported crimes against persons typically occur
during after-school hours (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999), and more specifically, between three
and six o’clock in the afternoon (Newman et al., 2000; Taylor-Butts, 2010). However,
Gottfredson and Soule (2005) argue that violent offenses during school hours are the most
frequent. By contrast, the peak of violent crime among adults is between midnight and three
o’clock in the morning (Taylor-Butts, 2010). Furthermore, youth violence tends to decrease
5
on weekends when young people are interacting less with their peers (see Jacob & Lefgren,
2003) while violent adult offences are increasing during weekends (see Falk, 1952; Briscoe &
Donnell, 2003).
The above-mentioned differences between youth crime and adult crime suggest that
the relationship of youth crime to education may also be different. Moreover, criminal
involvement of young people can influence their educational attainment, while the impact of
adult crime on educational attainment is less likely.
3. Theories underlying criminal behavior and its link to education
The theoretical literature that focuses on the underlying mechanisms of criminal behavior
distinguishes among biological, psychological, sociological (see Reid, 2011) and economic
mechanisms (Becker, 1968; Freedman, 1999). The Technology of Skill Formation of Cunha
& Heckman (2007) captures these different theoretical mechanisms. An adapted version of
their model is represented by the following equation:
));,,,,(),...,,,,(,;( 111110 ttTTttt XIegsIIegsIm .,...,1 Tt
where t represents the acquired skills on a time period t . The equation shows that the
acquired skills in period t are influenced by 1t , the acquired skills in period 1t . This
framework implies the dynamic nature of cognitive and socio-emotional development:
different skills and the same skill in different periods are strongly related. Hence, skills related
to education and skills related to criminal involvement can be in close connection, and can
influence each other over time. Skill attainment at one stage of the life cycle raises skill
attainment at later stages of the life cycle, which is referred to as self-productivity.
Furthermore, investments in skills at different stages of the life cycle can be complementary,
as later investments built upon the effectiveness of earlier investments (Cunha & Heckman,
2007).
A specific situation occurs in the first period, where the model indicates that the
acquired skills are influenced by 0 , which represents innate child characteristics. Biological
theories consider criminal behavior as the result of biological deviations. Examples of such
biological deviations are genetic predisposition to crime, brain abnormalities (e.g. brain
damage and poor brain functioning), and neurotransmitter dysfunction (see Raine, 2002).
Because biological deviations may also occur during the lifetime, we included tX , a factor
6
that indicates that certain circumstances in the life time may influence the skills acquired in
that period.
Psychological and psychoanalytical theories relate criminal conduct to the emotional
and intellectual development of individuals, information processing and personality traits.
Especially, the role of early childhood experiences is emphasized (see, among others, Bartol,
2002). Innate psychological characteristics are therefore also represented by 0 , while
psychological development factors that occur over time are captured by tX .
The tI functions indicate that parents, peers and schools ( s ), as well as governments
( g ) invest in the child’s development. The size of investments varies over the T time periods
and therefore the T investment functions appear in the skills production function.
Investments depend on previous performances, such as skills and social behavior, and
captured by 1t .
As is argued by Cunha and Heckman (2007), current investments are more promising
when previous investments, 1t , were made. Also, the investments are more likely to be
made if there were successful earlier investments. We conveniently assume that investments
(acquired skills) in period t are only influenced by the investments (acquired skills) one
period earlier, while in reality it is likely that all past investments and acquired skills are of
importance.
Sociological theories underline the significant role of sociological background factors
( s ). Criminal behavior is explained from the social-organization and social-process
perspectives (see, Reid, 2011). The former assumes that criminal behavior and acquired skills
depend on variables related to the social structure (e.g. school social bonds, school climate).
The latter relates criminal behavior to social learning, labeling, and social control (see Reid,
2011).
Economic theories consider criminal acts to be the outcome of a rational decision
process in which the costs and benefits are rationally weighted (Becker, 1968; Freedman,
1999). Therefore, effort, e , is one of the factors that determines the amount of investment in a
particular period. Economic models predict that individuals compare the costs (effort) of skills
acquisition (and the benefits generated by these skills) to the costs (and benefits) of criminal
behavior.
To conclude, the Technology of Skill Formation framework enables us to consider the
relationship between education and criminal behavior of young people in a dynamic way.
7
Presumably, education and criminal behavior can be related at a single point in time and their
development can be strongly intertwined over time.
4. Literature search strategy and selection criteria
In order to find evidence on the relationship between education and youth crime, we
conducted a systematic literature review. In our search, we used different combinations of
keywords which are grouped as follows: a) children, juvenile(s), adolescent(s), youth, young
people; b) crime, delinquency, offending, arrest, incarceration, antisocial, risk-taking,
violence, substance abuse, behavior, involvement, engagement, activities; c) education(al),
school(ing), academic, dropout, early-school leaving, truancy, (non-)cognitive abilities, IQ,
performance, attendance, attainment; d) early childhood, adolescence, after-school, out-of-
school-time, stimulation, intervention, experiment, program.
The empirical literature was searched using the following electronic databases and
search engines: Elsevier, Google Scholar, Google Search, ERIC, EconLit, PsychLit, Science
Direct, SAGE’s, JSTOR, Social Science Research Network, Economic Papers, Wiley,
Springer, and Taylor & Francis. In this review, we considered peer-reviewed studies,
discussion papers, working papers, reviews and research reports that were accessible online
before October 2013. Non-published empirical studies were included because there is little
rigorous research that focuses on the effects between education and youth crime.
The content of the literature we analyzed qualitatively. There were two specific criteria
for inclusion of intervention studies. First, only interventions that have follow-ups in
adolescence (or young adulthood) were selected, and that measure effects on both educational
and criminal behavior outcomes. Second, only studies that have a randomized controlled trial
or that use a comparable control group were included. With regards to literature that examines
the effects of education on youth crime, only studies that aim to find causal effects were
included. The studies on the effects of early criminal behavior on educational outcomes are
generally rare, and therefore, we included all rigorous studies that analyze such effects.
As a result of this search and selection, in total 38 studies that evaluate 9 childhood
interventions, 3 interventions in school age and 7 adolescence interventions were identified as
relevant for this systematic literature review. With regards to studies that examine the effects
between education and youth crime, we selected and discussed 10 studies that analyze the
effects from education to youth crime and 3 studies that examine the impact of early criminal
involvement on educational outcomes.
8
5. The effects of interventions on educational and criminal behavior outcomes
During the last decades, a number of social interventions have been implemented that were
aimed to develop skills and prevent problem behavior of at-risk youth, predominantly from
families with a low SES and from ethnic minority groups (see Blau and Currie, 2006; Olds et
al., 2007; Decovic et al., 2012; Durlak et al., 2011). We review a number of intervention
studies in order to establish a link between education and criminal behavior of young people.
The selected interventions and studies that evaluate them are presented below, and also in the
tables attached to this section. The tables provide information on early childhood
interventions, interventions in early school age and adolescence interventions. In left to right
order, the columns illustrate when and where an intervention occurred, target group of the
intervention, age of participants, content of the intervention, duration of the intervention,
evaluation design and the age of participants at follow-up. The last columns show the effects
of the interventions on educational outcomes (i.e. academic performance, educational
attainment) and criminal behavior outcomes.
5.1 Early childhood interventions
According to the Technology of Skill Formation theory, investments in early childhood
education provide an essential basis for further investments. A significant part of the
interventions has been aimed at children aged between 0 and 6 years old. Typically, early
childhood interventions do not only target the children, but do also target the whole system
that surrounds the child’s development. Table 1 sums up evidence on early childhood
interventions.
The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) and the Infant Health Development Program (IHDP)
are programs provided to low socioeconomic status families with new-born children. Both
programs include home visits during mother’s pregnancy and services for infants and toddlers
(birth to three). The IHDP also offers center-based care for children and parent group
meetings. The main aim of these programs is to reduce negative intergenerational effects (e.g.
low education, risky behavior, unemployment) from parents to children. These programs were
rigorously evaluated using randomized controlled trials and had several follows up. The
evidence shows that there is no effect of the NFP on academic performance or educational
attainment, but the program does reduce offending behavior of girls (Eckenrode et al., 2010).
The IHDP had no significant effect on criminal behavior of juveniles aged 18, the effects on
academic performance are mixed and there is no significant effect on educational attainment
(McCormick et al., 2006).
9
The Jamaican Study is another infant intervention with similar content. It was targeted at
129 children aged between 9 and 24 months who came from poor disadvantaged
neighborhoods in Jamaica (Walker et al., 1990). The program provided nutrition
supplementation and psychological stimulation by weekly home visits by community health
assistants. The psychological stimulation was based on mother-child interaction. It included
play sessions with a child and the mother and sessions only for the mother to teach her how to
promote the child development through play. The results show that the intervention,
especially psychological stimulation, has a positive effect on educational outcomes at age 11-
12 and sustain through age 17-18 and 22 (Walker et al., 2005, 2011). Walker et al. (2011) find
that participants in the Jamaican program who received stimulation were less involved in
fights and in serious violent behavior at the age of 22.
The Carolina Abecederian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive
Education (CARE) are early childhood interventions targeted at children aged between 6
weeks and 8 years old. The sample of children in the ABC project included developmentally
at-risk children (N=110) while children in the CARE (N = 66) were from high-risk and low-
risk families. The ABC project offered full-time center-based childcare. The CARE project
had two types of interventions: (1) center-based childcare combined with home visits, and (2)
home visits only. The results show that the ABC program has positive effects on educational
outcomes but no effect on criminal behavior on young people. CARE positively affected
academic performance and reduced marijuana use for participants of the program (Clarke and
Campbell, 1998; Campbell et al., 2002).
There are interventions that are specifically aimed at preparing children for school. The
most well-known of such interventions is the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. 128
children from deprived African American families with low IQ scores (below 85) were
randomly assigned to a treatment and a control group. Participants of the treatment group
regularly (biweekly during four years) received home visits by the teacher until they were of
school age. The study followed 123 individuals over a longer period and showed that
preschool education had positive effects on educational attainment of females, but not for
males, and that it reduced criminal behavior of all participants (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997;
Schweinhart et al., 2005; Heckman et al., 2010). However, the program was targeted at a very
specific group of children and these results are therefore may be not representative for
different populations.
The Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC), the large-scale programs Head Start and the
small-scale program Syracuse Family Development Research Program (FDRP) were not
10
based on randomized control trials. However, these interventions were evaluated rigorously.
For instance, in the evaluation of CPC another disadvantaged area of Chicago was used as the
control group, by applying matching techniques (Reynolds & Temple, 1995; Reynolds et al.,
2001). All three programs provide home visits for children from low socioeconomic families
with the aim to better prepare them for school. In addition, day care was provided in the
FDRP program. The studies that evaluated Head Start show positive but weak effects on
education of participants while effects on criminal behavior are mixed (Garces et al., 2002;
Deming, 2009; Currie, 2001). The CPC positively affected academic performance,
educational attainment and reduced arrest rate (Campbell et al., 2002; Barnett, 2008;
Reynolds et al., 2001). The effect of the FDRP also improved academic performance and
reduced criminal involvement (Lally et al., 1988).
We conclude that the common feature of the early childhood interventions is that they
are aimed at cognitive and socio-emotional development of at-risk children from the earliest
stage of life. Children are provided with similar services that involve social, mental and
psychological stimulations. It is, however, difficult to distinguish which components of these
interventions are the most effective. Even though not all early childhood interventions
reduced criminal behavior and improved educational characteristics, evidence generally
shows that investing in children at an early age, especially in at-risk children, can improve
their future educational outcomes and reduce criminal behavior.
[Table 1 is around here]
5.2 Interventions in early school age
Interventions in early school age are often aimed at improving academic performance of
students and at the regulation of relationships between students and their peers, teachers, and
parents. The selected interventions and studies that evaluate these interventions are presented
in Table 2.
The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) is a long term project aimed at children’s
development in public elementary schools. This program included in-service teacher
trainings, parenting classes for parents and social competence training for children. This
project targeted 808 pupils who were enrolled in fifth grade. The follows-up suggests that the
SSDP improved education while the effect on criminal behavior is mixed (Hawkings et al.,
2001, 2005).
11
The Montreal Longitudinal Experimental Study (MLES) was conducted amongst at-risk
boys aged between 7 and 9 years from low socio-economic status families. The interventions
provided social skills trainings to children, their parents and teachers by professional social
workers. For example, parents received special training programs on how to better supervise
children’s behavior, train their non-cognitive skills, use non-abusive discipline strategies and
manage family crises. At the end of primary school, boys from the treatment group had a
significantly lower fighting score, were less likely to have serious behavioral and performance
problems at school compared to the boys in the non-treated groups. They were also less likely
to commit thefts and delinquent acts involving trespassing (Tremblay et al., 1992, 1996).
Another study shows that children who participated in the program were more likely to
graduate from high school, while there was no effect on the probability of having a criminal
record (Boisjoli et al., 2007).
The Los Angeles Better Educated Students for Tomorrow program (LA’s BEST) is an
after-school enrichment program that aims to provide a safe and supervised environment for
students at-risk in disadvantaged neighborhoods. It is designed for children in kindergarten
through fifth/sixth grade. LA’s BEST focuses on cognitive, non-cognitive and physical
development of children and include a number of learning and social (e.g. enrichment and
recreation) activities such as a homework assistance, tutoring services, a library services,
sports, arts and crafts and group activities. The program is not rigorously evaluated by means
of a randomized control trial, but instead the evaluation studies apply a propensity score
matching method. The evaluation results suggest that the program has an effect on
educational attainment, but not on academic performance (Huang et al., 2008, 2009). The
program also had a favorable impact on criminal behavior, however only for those who
attended the program most frequently (Goldschmidt & Huang, 2007). However, these studies
do not address the issue of selective program attendance.
We conclude that the reviewed studies suggest that well-established interventions in early
school age can contribute considerably to improving educational outcomes through
adolescence while the effects on criminal behavior are not clear. Perhaps, more such
interventions need to be evaluated in order to make a stronger conclusion with regards to its
effects on criminal behavior as well as the mechanism of these effects.
[Table 2 is around here]
5.4 Adolescence interventions
12
Adolescence interventions are often aimed at preventing criminal involvement or low
educational attainment of at-risk juveniles. The selected interventions and evaluation studies
are documented below and in Table 3.
The Big Brothers Big Sisters program (BBBS) is a mentoring program for juveniles aged
between 10 and 16 who live in disadvantaged families (e.g. single-parent). The program
provided regular meetings of volunteer mentors with participants of the program. The
empirical results suggest that the program has a strong effect on academic performance
(however, only for girls) and reduces violence in school and substance abuse (Tierney et al.,
1995; Grossman & Tierney, 1998).
The Quantum Opportunity Project (QOP) provided mentoring, educational services and
financial rewards to juveniles at-risk aged 14 or 15. The program’s activities were performed
out-of-school time. Students from the treated group were promised that they would receive a
financial reward if they obtain a high school diploma (or GED) and if they continue their
education at the postsecondary level. The results of the program show that adolescents in the
treatment group graduated high school earlier and were more likely to continue postsecondary
education compared to adolescents in the control group. The intervention had a reducing
effect on criminal activity for youth in the top-half of the risk distribution and this effect
persisted up to 5 years after the program. The program, however, was not effective for youth
in the bottom-half of the risk distribution (Rodríguez-Planas, 2012).
The National Guard ChalleNGe and Job Corps are large-scale programs that provided
residence-based education and job training for young people at-risk (often school drop-outs).
From the beginning of the 1990s these programs involved thousands of participants. The
empirical results show that participants were more likely to obtain a GED certification, but
not a high school diploma (Bloom et al., 2009; Millenky et al., 2011, 2013; Schochet et al.,
2008). The favorable effect on arrest and conviction of these programs was only observed
during the intervention when young people were enrolled in residence-based education and
training and show no lasting effect on crime in the long-run (Schochet et al., 2008; Millenky
et al., 2011).
The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) program was designed to increase
participation, retention and achievement in post-compulsory education among young people
aged 16-18 in the U.K. by means of a weekly monetary allowance (provided to young people
or their parents). Areas with low participation in post-compulsory education and areas with
higher levels of economic deprivation were selected for this intervention. In evaluation
studies, individuals from areas that participated in the EMA program were matched to
13
individuals from control areas with similar characteristics. The results show that the EMA has
a positive effect on participation in education, in particular in urban areas (Ashworth et al.,
2001, 2002; Heaver et al., 2002). The program also has a negative effect on burglary and theft
conviction rates among young people aged 16-18, while there is no effect on convictions rates
for violent crime (Feinstein & Sabates, 2005). The authors explain this effect by a direct
income effect on crime reduction due to the income support provided to youth and by
incapacitation effects of education.
“Becoming a Man” (BAM) is an intervention provided for at-risk youth from high
schools in the Chicago Public School system, which is located in low-income, racially
segregated and with high crime rates neighborhoods. The intervention included in-school
programming, after-school programming, or both, exposing young people to pro-social adults,
keeping them busy during the high-risk after-school hours, and implementing aspects of
cognitive behavioral therapy. The results of an evaluation study suggest that program
participation reduced violent-crime arrests during the program year and generated substantial
gains in schooling outcomes, leading to higher graduation rates (Heller et al., 2013).
The Het Alternatief (Halt) program is a Dutch afterschool program that aims to prevent
delinquent juveniles from re-offending and to improve their social behavior. The participants
of the treatment group had to perform different working and learning activities in the after-
school time, such as community work, apologize for their behavior or write an essay. The
evaluation study shows mixed results with regards to a reduction of criminal behavior
(Ferwerda et al., 2006). Nevertheless, a study that evaluates the effect of Halt on educational
outcomes suggests that Halt has a significant positive effect on educational attainment and it
is likely to reduce the probability of early school leaving (Rud et al., 2013).
Evidence on extended school days suggests a statistically significant reduction in
offending behavior of juveniles during high-risk (after-school) hours (e.g. Aizer 2004; Riggs
& Greenberg, 2004). Aizer (2004), for instance, finds that young people with adult
supervision are less likely to be truant and less often commit minor offences. This study
shows that adult supervision after school makes young people less likely to use alcohol and
drugs, participate in property and violent offences. After-school programs are likely to help
young people to solve many behavioral problems and have overall positive effects on social
skills and emotional development of young people (see Durlak at el., 2011). Finally, it is
worth mentioning the role of recreational activities as a part of educational programs that
reduce violence and aggression among high-risk youngsters. In particular, the longitudinal
14
study by Caruso (2011) shows a robust negative association between participation in sport-
related programs and youth crime.
We conclude that adolescence interventions aimed at at-risk juveniles can improve their
educational outcomes. The effects on criminal behavior outcomes are rather mixed, although
incapacitation effects of the education and training programs clearly reduce participation in
criminal activities. However, the exact mechanisms of how adolescence interventions can
affect educational and behavioral outcomes are not identified, and we can speculate that the
social control, incapacitation and educational components might be the main paths for these
effects.
[Table 3 is around here]
5. Empirical studies on the relationship between education and youth crime
In this section, we further explore how education and youth crime are related. We start with
documenting the empirical results of studies that examine the effect of education on
delinquent involvement and then discuss the empirical results of studies that evaluate the
impact of early criminal behavior on educational outcomes. Table 4 and Table 5 present these
two types of studies, respectively. These tables provide the following information: name of
the study, country of the study, research population, sample size, the evaluation method of the
study, what is the input variable and the effects on criminal behavior outcomes (Table 4) or
educational outcomes (Table 5).
6.1 The effects of education on youth crime
Many studies suggested that truancy and school dropout are negatively related to the
probability of criminal behavior (e.g. Elliott, 1966; Thornberry et al., 1985; Jarjoura, 1993,
1996), however, this association can become insignificant after controlling for certain
background characteristics (e.g. Bachman et al., 1978; Krohn et al., 1995). Therefore, studies
that establish a causal relationship between education and youth crime are of particular
importance.
The empirical evidence showing that educational attainment negatively affects adult
crime is growing (e.g. Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Machin et al., 2011; Groot & Maassen van
den Brink, 2010; Meghir et al. 2010). However, little rigorous research has been conducted on
the effects between education and youth crime (see Belfield & Levin, 2009; Lochner, 2010;
15
Hjalmarsson & Lochner, 2012). This can be explained that youth crime is not always
measured accurately and that there can be many confounding factors such that isolating a
single chain of causality is difficult (Belfield & Levin, 2009).
There are several studies that focus on the incapacitation effect of education on criminal
involvement of youth. Jacob and Lefgren (2003) use teacher in-service days during the
regular school year in the U.S. as a source of exogenous variation in students’ school
attendance. On teacher in-service days students do not attend school but teachers attend,
conducting organizational tasks. The researchers discuss that these days are unlikely to be
correlated with factors that influence criminal activity. The results of their study suggest that
property crime committed by young people aged between 10 and 19 decreases with 14
percent, but incidents of violent crime increase by 28 percent on school days compared to
teacher in-service days.
Luallen (2006) expresses doubts on that teacher in-service days is an exogenous source of
variation in student absence from school, and argues that such days are usually known in
advance and therefore juveniles may plan crime on a free of school day. The researcher
replicates the study by Jacob and Lefgren (2003) using teacher strikes as an unexpected
source of school closing. For this purpose, Luallen (2006) apply data that measure criminal
activities reported at the zip code level by linking them to the corresponding school districts.
The results of this study are similar to those of Jacob and Lefgren (2003), but the magnitude
of the effects is larger. In particular, the study shows that school incapacitation reduces
property crime with approximately 29 percent, and that violent crime increases with a
percentage that lies between 32 and 37 percent. The additional tests show that these effects
only hold for urban communities. The study also suggests that the decrease in violent crime
during teacher strike-days mainly results from offenders who usually commit multiple crimes,
while the increase in property crime is driven by school absenteeism of both one-time and
repeat offenders.
Landersø et al. (2013) explores the relationship between educational incapacitation due to
early start and later graduation of compulsory education on the likelihood of criminal
behavior of adolescents. The researches use Danish register-based data and variation in school
starting age generated by administrative rules, arguing that this variation is exogenous. They
find that higher age at school start lowers the propensity of criminal behavior before age 18
and this reduction is caused by incapacitation effects of education. Their study also suggests
that this effect is not homogeneous across gender: property crime is reduced for boys while
violent crime is reduced for girls. Besides, the effect for boy with high levels of latent abilities
16
is higher. Finally, they conclude that “the effects are not caused by relative age of peers but by
one’s own school starting age” (p. 27).
A second literature focuses on the effects of increased educational attainment on criminal
behavior probabilities, even though this relationship may include different underlying
mechanisms, such as skill acquisition and educational incapacitation as well.
Åslund et al. (2012) study the impact of a large scale Swedish reform in vocational
education on criminal convictions among youth. The reform extended vocational upper
secondary education from two to three years and added more general theoretical content. The
authors argue that this reform concerned age groups where criminal activity is relatively high
and students who are overrepresented in crime statistics. The results of this study show that
increased access to prolonged and more theoretical vocational education leads to a persistent
reduction in property crime, but not significant decrease in violent crime. In particular, three-
years vocational programs lead to a reduction in property crime among students by a 1.8
percentage point, compared to no three-year vocational programs.
Anderson (2012) analyses the relationship between education and youth crime using state-
level variation in the minimum dropout age (from age 16 to 17 or 18) in the U.S. In particular,
changes in the compulsory schooling law are used in a difference-in-differences framework to
control for unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity bias. The results show that higher
educational attainment due to a change in the compulsory schooling law reduces arrests of
young people by roughly 10 percent.
Machin et al. (2012) identify the effect of educational attainment on youth crime using the
reform in post-compulsory education system in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the U.K. as a
source of exogenous variation in educational participation of young individuals aged between
16 and 21. This reform increased the number of individuals that stayed in education. The
criminal data used for this study come from on a randomly selected sample of offenders. The
results show that a one percent increase in the proportion of males in full time education and a
one percent increase in the proportion of men staying in education after the compulsory
school leaving age reduces criminal behavior of young men by around 1.9 percent and 1.7
percent, respectively. This reduction is also present for women, although smaller in
magnitude, 1.1 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.
Brugård and Falch (2012) exploit Norwegian data on educational characteristics and
detailed data on imprisonment for persons aged between 21 and 22 to analyse the relationship
between education and youth crime. They use exam results as an instrument for skills, and the
study track structure together with proximity to high schools as instrument for the number of
17
semesters in high school education. The results of this study suggest that an additional
semester in high school reduces the probability of imprisonment by 0.44 percentage points.
Merlo and Wolpin (2009) provide a comprehensive analysis of the dynamic interactions
among a youth’s schooling, employment and criminal behavior decisions and criminal
involvement outcomes. They use individual-level panel data reported by the Afro-American
male population aged between 13 and 22 in the U.S. To estimate youth’s decisions to engage
in schooling, employment and criminal behavior (including all possible combinations of these
three activities), they apply a multinomial discrete choice vector autoregression model. They
use the estimates to account for unobserved heterogeneity and state dependence (past choices
and outcomes). Furthermore, they simulated the effect of changing schooling status at age 16
for the same individuals and compare their criminal involvement. They conclude that not
attending school at age 16 (implying school dropout) increases the likelihood of committing
crime and being incarcerated at age 19-22 by up to 14.8 percentage points and up to 8.1
percentage points, respectively.
A third literature focuses on the effects of effects of post-secondary school attendance on
criminal behavior of young people. Cullen et al. (2006) evaluate the effects of winning a
lottery that allows high school admission in the Chicago Public Schools on educational and
criminal behavior outcomes. The study shows that although winning the lottery increases
enrollment and attendance in the high schools, there are no positive effects on other
educational outcomes. This can be explained that there is a mismatch between student ability
and school requirements (Lochner, 2010). There is, however, a negative effect on self-
reported disciplinary incidents and registered arrest rates. Self-reported arrest rates are
reduced by about 60 percent among lottery winners relative to lottery losers.
Deming (2011) examines the effect of winning a school lottery to attend a first-choice
school (middle or high school) in the U.S. on criminal activity. The results of this study
suggest that winning the lottery reduces crime that measured 7 years after random assignment,
namely, high-risk youth who won the lottery commit about 50 percent less crime compared to
youth who did not win the lottery. Besides, the reduction is crime occurs after juveniles are
graduated from their preferred school. This effect persists 4-7 years after random assignment
in both the middle and high school. This effect can be explained by the returns to investment
in schooling, higher educational attainment and increase the opportunity cost of crime for
young people who won the lottery (Deming, 2011; Lochner, 2004). The study also suggests
“evidence that the impacts of high school are more attributable to gains in school quality,
whereas the results in middle school are driven more by peer effects” (Deming, 2011, p.
18
2066). However, it is possible that juveniles (and their parents) can self-select themselves into
better schools and therefore the impact of winning the lottery can be driven by match-specific
peer effects.
To sum up, the reviewed and documented above studies reveal causal evidence on the
negative effect from education (including school attendance and educational attainment) to
youth crime. Furthermore, these studies suggest that the effect of education can be direct
(through incapacitation) and indirect (e.g. through skill acquisition). More evidence on the
driving forces of this effect would benefit the research.
[Table 4 is around here]
6.2 The effects of criminal behavior on educational outcomes
This section summarizes the empirical results of studies that focus on the effects of early
criminal involvement on educational outcomes.
Hjalmarsson (2008) analyzes the relationship between previous criminal involvement and
high school graduation by age 19 on the data from the U.S. This study uses a linear
probability model and controls for a large set of observable characteristics, and also takes into
account the state and household fixed effects. The results suggest that arrest and incarceration
at age 16 or earlier significantly reduce the probability of graduating high school by about 11
and 26 percentage points, respectively. In addition, Hjalmarsson (2008) uses techniques
proposed by Altonji et al. (2005) to assess the sensitivity of these effects. This exercise
suggests that the effect of incarceration is relatively more robust than that of arrest, and it is
likely to represent a real effect.
McGarvey et al. (2008) examine the relationship among school and neighborhood crime
and school academic outcomes using school-level data from a large urban district in U.S.
which were merged with crime data. In the instrumental variable estimation, they apply a set
of instruments such as total number of adults in the school, distance from school to the nearest
public housing, distance to public transport and other factors. The authors claim that these
factors affect school outcomes only through their correlation with crime and socioeconomic
status. Their study suggests that school violence and neighborhood violence have separate
negative effects on school outcomes. In particular, an additional violent incident in a school is
associated with a 4 percentage point decline in academic pass rate (referred in the paper as
CRCT and denotes the proportion of students meeting or exceeding standards in grades four
and six).
19
Webbink et al. (2012) analyze the relationship between criminal involvement and
educational attainment using variations within pair of twins from the Australian Twin
Register. They find that being arrested before the age of 18 results in 0.7 to 0.9 fewer years of
education and lowers the probability of finishing high school with 20 to 23 percentage points.
The study, furthermore, shows that the impact of being arrested on educational attainment is
largest for children who were arrested between the age of 13 and 15 years old. However,
although twins are genetically similar, there can be underlying factors of their different
treatment status and these factors can also influence educational outcomes differently.
These studies, in general, suggest that the reverse causality between education and youth
crime is possible. At the same time, stronger evidence on the effect from early criminal
behavior to education is needed to make a conclusion about the causal effects.
[Table 5 is around here]
Conclusion
This study provides a systematic literature review on the relationship between education and
youth crime using the Technology of Skill Formation is used as a theoretical framework. This
theory enables us to consider that education and youth crime are related in a dynamic way.
We first discussed studies that evaluate the effects of childhood and adolescence
interventions on educational and criminal behavior outcomes. We find that early-childhood
programs that focus on children from disadvantaged families tend to improve educational
outcomes and reduce criminal behavior of young people. Interventions in the early school age
and adolescence interventions show positive effects on educational outcomes while the effects
on youth crime are mixed. In general, existing evidence suggests that early interventions are
more effective than later interventions for disadvantaged children (Cunha et al. 2006).
Little is known about the mechanisms of these effects. Although many intervention
studies show that interventions can have positive effects on improving education and reducing
youth crime, these studies do not reveal whether these effects work through separate paths, or
whether this is indeed the result of an interrelationship. Therefore, we document studies that
analyze the effects of education on youth crime and studies that establish the relationship
from early criminal behavior to education.
The studies that focus on identifying the effects of education on criminal behavior of
young people find that being in school keeps juveniles from being engaged in crime, in
particular property crime. Second, not attending school increases the probability of being
20
incarcerated among juveniles. Both types of findings can be explained by incapacitation
effects of school. Third, expansion of educational attainment reduces the probability of
criminal involvement of young people. The exact mechanism of this effect is not identified,
though it is possible that higher educational attainment favorably influences emotional
development, patience, risk aversion and other skills of young people that are negatively
related to criminal behavior. Finally, being in post-compulsory education (with higher quality
education and/or better peers) has a reducing effect on criminal behavior for juveniles from
socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
Studies that focus on identifying the effect of criminal activities on educational outcomes
find that criminal behavior in adolescence provokes negative outcomes in school graduation
and school attendance. Violence in schools, moreover, results in lower educational attainment.
The reviewed studies that examine the effects of early criminal behavior on educational
attainment provide strong correlational evidence. In general, exogenous variation in youth
crime is very rare, which makes it difficult to establish causal links.
Generally, this study concludes that evidence for a relationship between education and
youth crime is convincing, although the exact dynamics of this connection are still largely
unknown. It follows that policies aimed at the combating or preventing of criminal behavior
or improving educational outcomes should take this interrelationship into account. Further
research can contribute by examining the mechanisms between education and youth crime
outcomes and by investigating what are the most effective components of childhood and
adolescence interventions for educational and social behavior outcomes. Moreover, more
evidence is needed on the effects of early criminal behavior on educational outcomes.
21
References
Aizer A. (2004). Home alone: supervision after school and child behaviour. Journal of Public
Economics, 88, 1835-48.
Altonji, J.G., Elder, T.E., & Taber, C.R. (2005). Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables:
Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools. Journal of Political Economy, 113, 151-184.
Anderson, M. (2012). In School and Out of Trouble? The Minimum Dropout Age and Juvenile Crime.
Accepted conditional upon minor revisions at Review of Economics and Statistics.
Ashworth, A., Hardman, J., Liu, W. C., Maguire, S., Middleton, S., Dearden, L., Emmerson, C.,
Frayne, C., Goodman, A., Ichimura, H. & Meghir, C. (2001). Education Maintenance Allowance:
the first year. A quantitative evaluation, RR257, London: DfEE. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18495/1/18495.pdf.
Ashworth, A., Hardman, J., Hartfree, Y., Maguire, S., Middleton, S., Smith, D., Dearden, L.,
Emmerson, C., Frayne, C., & Meghir, C. (2002). Education Maintenance Allowance: the first two
years. A quantitative evaluation, RR352, London: DfES. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publicat
ions/eOrderingDownload/RB352.pdf.
Åslund, O., Grönqvist, H., Hall, C. & Vlachos, J. (2012). Education and Criminal Behavior: Insights
from an Expansion of Upper Secondary School. EALE paper. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from
http://www.eale.nl/Conference2013/program/Parallel%20session%20E/add214596_qnDlx9NAxz.p
df.
Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M. & Johnson, J. (1978). Youth in transition (Vol. 6). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, Institute for survey research.
Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications.
Boulder and Tempe: Education and Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
Retrieved October 1, 2013 from http://nieer.org/resources/research/PreschoolLastingEffects.pdf.
Bartol, Curt. (2002). Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy,
76(2), 169-217.
Belfield, C. R. & Levin, H. M. (2009). “High School Dropouts and The Economic Losses from
Juvenile Crime in California”. California Dropout Research Project Report 16. Retrieved October
21, 2013 from
http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/High_School_Dropouts_and_The_Economic_Losses.pdf.
Blau, D., and J. Currie (2006). Pre-School, Day Care, and After-School Care: Who’s Minding the
Kids? Vol. 2 of Handbook of the Economics of Education, (chap. 20, pp.1163–1278). Elsevier.
Bloom, D., Gardenhire-Crooks, A., & Mandsager, C. (2009). Reengaging high school dropouts: Early
results of the National Guard Youth Challenge Program Evaluation. New York: MDRC.
Boisjoli, R., Vitaro, F., Lacourse, E., Barker, E. D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Impact and clinical
significance of a preventive intervention for disruptive boys: 15 year follow-up. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 191, 415-419.
Bosick, S.J. (2009). Operationalizing crime over the life course, Crime & Delinquency, 55, 472–96.
Briscoe, S., & Donnell, N. (2003). Problematic licensed premises for assault in inner Sydney,
Newcastle and Wollongong. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(1), 18-33.
Calvó-Armengol, A. & Zenou, Y. (2003). Does crime affect unemployment? The role of social
networks, Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, 71-72, 173-188.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J. & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied
Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6(1), 42–57.
Caruso R., 2011. Crime and Sport Participation, Evidence from Italian regions over the period 1997-
2003. Journal of Socio-Economics. 40, 455-463.
22
Clarke, S. H., & Campbell, F. A. (1998). Can intervention early prevent crime later? The Abecedarian
project compared with other programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 319–343.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of The Gang. New York: Free Press.
Cullen, J., Jacob, B. & Levitt, S. (2006). The Effect of School Choice on Participants: Evidence from
Randomized Lotteries. Econometrica, 74, 1191-1230.
Cunha, F. & Heckman, J. J. (2007). The Technology of Skill Formation. American Economic Review,
97(2), 31-47.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, Lochner, L. J. & Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life
cycle skill formation. In E. A. Hanushek and F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of
Education, Chapter 12, pp. 697–812. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 213–
238.
Dekovic, M., Asscher, J. J., Slagt, M. I., & Boendermaker, L. (2012). Prevention programmes in early
and middle childhood and their effect on adult crime. In R. Loeber, M. Hoeve, N.W. Slot, & P. van
der Laan (Eds.), Persisters and desisters in crime from adolescence into adulthood. Explanation,
prevention and punishment (pp. 239-262). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
Deming, D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from
Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association,
1(3), 111-34.
Deming, D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from
Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 11-34.
Detotto, C. & Otranto, E. (2010). Does Crime Affect Economic Growth? Kyklos 63: 330‐345.
Retrived October 21, 2013 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1640229.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that
seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 45, 294–309.
Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D. & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The impact
of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal
interventions, Child Development, 82, 405-32.
Eckenrode J, Campa M, Luckey DW, Henderson CR Jr, Cole R, Kitzman H, Anson E, Sidora-Arcoleo
K, Powers J, & Olds D. (2010). Long-term Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation
on the Life Course of Youths: 19-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial, Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine 164 (1), 9-15.
Elliott, D. S. (1966). Delinquency, School Attendance and Dropout. Social Problems, 13, 307-14.
Falk, G. J. (1952). The influence of the seasons on the crimes. The Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 43(2), 199–213.
Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An
annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 189-250). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2001). ‘Predicting persistent young offenders’. In G.L. McDowell and J.S. Smith
(Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in the US and the UK, UK: Macmillan Press Limited.
Feinstein, L. & Sabates, R. (2005). Education and youth crime: Effects of introducing the Educational
Maintenance Allowance programme. (Research Report, No. 14). London: Centre for Research on
the Wider Benefits of Learning. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from
http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResReps/ResRep14.pdf.
Ferwerda, H. B., I. M. G. G. van Leiden, N. A. M. Arts & Hauber A. R. (2006), Halt: Het alternatief?
De effecten van Halt beschreven, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers / WODC (Onderzoek &
Beleid, deel 244).
Freeman, Richard B. (1999), The Economics of Crime. In O. Ashenfelter & Card, D. (Eds.),
Handbook of Labor Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie J. (2002). Long-term effects of Head Start. American Economic
Review, 92, 999–1012.
Goldschmidt, P., & Huang, D. (2007). The long-term effects of after-school programming on
educational adjustment and juvenile crime: A study of the LA’s BEST after-school program. Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research and Evaluation,
Standards and Student Testing.
23
Goldson, B. & Muncie, J. (2006). Youth Crime and Justice: Critical Issues. London: Sage.
Gottfredson, D. C., & Soulè, D. A. (2005). The timing of property crime, violent crime, and substance
use among juveniles. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 110–120.
Greenwood, P. (1995). Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice. In J. Q.Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.),
Crime. San Francisco. ICS Press.
Groot, W. & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2010). The effects of education on crime, Applied
Economics, 42(3), 279-89.
Grossman, J.B. & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does Mentoring Work? An Impact Study of the Big Brothers
Big Sisters Program. Evaluation Review, 22 (3), 402-25.
Hannon L. (2003). Poverty, Delinquency, and Educational Attainment: Cumulative Disadvantage or
Disadvantage Saturation? Sociological Inquiry 73: 575–94.
Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Long-term effects of
the Seattle Social Development intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental
Science, 5(4), 225-236.
Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2005). Promoting positive
adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood. Archives of Pediatric
Adolescent Medicine, 159, 25-31.
Heaver, C., Maguire, M., Middleton, S., Maguire, S., Youngs, R., Dobson, B. & Hardman, J. (2002).
Evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance pilots: Leeds and London. First Year Evidence,
RR353, London: DfES. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4689/1/RR353.pdf.
Heckman, J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. & Yavitz, A. (2010). Analyzing social experiments
as implemented: A reexamination of the evidence from the HighScope Perry Preschool Program.
Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, 1(1), 1-46.
Heller, S. B., Pollack, H. A., Ander, R. & Ludwig, J. (2013). Preventing youth violence and dropout:
A randomized field experiment. Chicago University. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from
http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbheller/UC_Site/Welcome_files/Heller%20et%20al%20draft%202013
0425.pdf.
Hjalmarsson, R. & L. Lochner (2012). “The Impact of Education on Crime: International
Evidence”, CESifo DICE Report - Journal for Institutional Comparisons. Retrieved October 20,
2013 from http://www.economics.handels.gu.se/digitalAssets/1439/1439011_49-
55_research_lochner.pdf.
Hjalmarsson, R.(2008). Criminal Justice Involvement and High School Completion. Journal of Urban
Economics, 63 (2), 613-30.
Huang, D., Leon, S., Harven, A., La Torre, D., & Mostafavi, S. (2009). Examining the relationship
between LA’s BEST program attendance and cognitive gain of LA’s BEST students. Los Angeles:
University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, and Student
Testing (CRESST).
Huang, D., Leon, S., La Torre, D., & Mostafavi, S. (2008). Examining the relationship between LA’s
BEST program attendance and academic achievement of LA’s BEST students (CRESST Tech.
Rep. No. 749). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Jacob, B. & Lefgren, L. (2003). Are idle hands the devil’s workshop? Incapacitation, concentration,
and juvenile crime. American Economic Review, 93, 1560-1577.
Jarjoura, G. R. (1993). Does dropping out of school enhance delinquent involvement? Results from a
large-scale national probability sample. Criminology, 31(2), 149-72.
Jarjoura, G. R. (1996). The conditional effect of social class on the dropout–delinquency relationship.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 232-55.
Junger-Tas J. & Dünkel, F. (Eds.). (2009) Reforming Juvenile Justice. Dordrecht: Springer, p. 183-
204.
Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I.H., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M. & Gruszczynska, B. (2010).
Juvenile Delinquency in Europe and Beyond: Results of the Second International Self-Report
Delinquency Study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kaja Høiseth Brugård & Torberg Falch (2012). High school attainment, student achievement, and
imprisonment. EEA-ESEM paper. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from http://www.eea-
esem.com/files/papers/eea-esem/2012/1177/Education%20and%20crime.pdf.
24
Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Collins-Hall, L. & Lizotte, A. J. (1995). School dropout, delinquent
behavior, and drug use: An examination of the causes and consequences of dropping out of school.
In Howard B. Kaplan (Ed.), Drugs, Crime, and Other Deviant Adaptations: Longitudinal Studies
(pp.163-183). New York: Plenum Press.
Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., Honig, A. S. & Wittner, D. S. (1988). More Pride, Less Delinquency:
Findings From the 10-Year Follow-Up Study of the Syracuse University Family Development
Research Program. Zero to Three 8(4), 13–18.
Landersø, R., Nielsen, H. S. and Simonsen, M. (2013), “School starting age and crime”, IZA
Discussion Papers 7228, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Retrieved October 22, 2013 from
http://ftp.iza.org/dp7228.pdf.
Levitt, S. D. & Lochner, L. (2001), The determinants of juvenile crime. In J. Gruber, Risky Behaviour
Among Youths: An Economic Analysis (pp. 327-73). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lochner, L. & Moretti, E. (2004). The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates,
Arrests, and Self-Reports, American Economic Review, 94 (1), pp. 155 – 189.
Lochner, L. (2004). Education, Work, and Crime: A Human Capital Approach. International
Economic Review, 45 (3).
Lochner, L. (2010) “Education Policy and Crime,” NBER Working Paper 15894. Retrieved October
28, 2013 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15894.pdf?new_window=1.
Lochner, L. (2011). Non-Production Benefits of Education: Crime, Health, and Good Citizenship. In
Hanushek, Machin and Woessman, (Eds.), Handbook of Economics of Education, vol.4. Elsevier.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P. & Petechuk, D. (2013). From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult
Offending. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice, in press.
Luallen, J. (2006). School's Out... Forever: A Study of Juvenile Crime, At-Risk Youths and Teacher
Strikes. Journal of Urban Economics, 59:75.
Machin, S, Marie, O. & Vujic, S. (2010) The Crime Reducing Effect of Education. The Economic
Journal, 121(552). 463-84.
Machin, S. Marie, O. & Vujić, S. (2012). Youth Crime and Education Expansion, German Economic
Review, 336-84.
McComick, M. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Buka, S. L., Goldman, J., Yu, J., Salganik, M., Scott, D. T.,
Bennett, F. C., Kay, L. L., Bernbaum, J. C., Bauer, C. R., Martin, C., Woods, E. R., Martin, A., &
Casey, P. (2006). Early Intervention in Low Birth Weight Premature Infants: Results at 18 Years of
Age for the Infant Health and Development Program. Journal of Pediatrics, 117(3), 771-780.
McCord, J., Widom, C.S., & Crowell, N.A., (Eds.). (2001). Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
McGarvey, M.G., W. J. Smith and M. B. Walker (2007). “The Interdependence of School Outcomes
and School and Neighborhood Crime. Nebraska: Georgia State University, Working Paper, 07-19.
Retrieved October 12, 2013 from http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2007/downloads/07-
19%20McGarveySmithWalker-TheIndependenceofSchoolOutcomes.pdf.
Meghir, C., Palme, M. & Schnabel, M. (2011), “The Effect of Education Policy on Crime: An
Intergenerational Perspective,” Research Papers in Economic No. 2011:23, Department of
Economics, Stockholm University. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18145.pdf?new_window=1.
Merlo, A. and K. Wolpin (2009), “The Transition from School to Jail: Youth Crime and High School
Completion among Black Males”, Penn Institute for Economic Research Working Paper 09–002.
Millenky, M., Bloom, D., Muller-Ravett, S., & Broadus, J. (2011). Three-year results of the National
Guard Youth ChalleNGe evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC.
Millenky, M., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2013). Supporting the transition to adulthood among
high school dropouts: An impact study of the National Guard Youth Challenge Program.
Prevention Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11121-013-0388-4. Retrieved
October 16, 2013 from http://www.mentoring.org/images/NGYCPImpactStudy.pdf.
Newman, S., Fox, J. A., Flynn, E. & Christiansen, W. (2000). America’s After-School Choice.
Washington, D.C.: Fight Crime Invest in Kids, 2000.
Olds, D., Sadler, L. & Kitzman, H. (2007b) Programs for parents of infants and toddlers: recent
evidence from randomized trials. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48 (3), 355-391.
25
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, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Psacharopoulos, G. (2007). The cost of school failure—A feasibility study. European Expert Network
on Economics of Education.
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Juvenile court statistics, 2006–2007. Pittsburgh,
PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice
Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behaviour in children and adults: A
review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(4), 311−326.
Reid, S. T. (2011), Crime and Criminology. (3rd
ed.). Oxford University Press.
Reiss, A. (1988). Co-Offending and Criminal Careers. Crime and Justice, Vol. 10
Reynolds, A. J. & Temple, J. A. (1995). Quasi-Experimental Estimates of the Effects of a Preschool
Intervention: Psychometric and Econometric Comparisons, Evaluation Review, 19 (4), 347-373.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. & Mann, E. (2001). Long-Term Effects of an Early
Childhood Intervention on Educational Attainment and Juvenile Arrest, Journal of the American
Medical Association, 285 (18), 2339-2346.
Riggs, N.R., Greenberg, M.T. (2004a). After-school youth development programs: A developmental-
ecological model of current research. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 7(3), 177-190.
Rodríguez-Planas, N., (2012). School and Drugs: Closing the Gap – Evidence from a Randomized
Trial in the US," IZA Discussion Papers 6770, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Retrieved
October 20, 2013 from http://www.iza.org/conference_files/CIER2012/1551.pdf.
Rud I., Van Klaveren C., Groot W. & Maassen van den Brink H. (2013). The effect of a Dutch
Alternative Punishment Program on Future Educational Outcomes. Working paper, TIER. Retrived
October 15, 2013 from http://www.eea-esem.com/files/papers/EEA-
ESEM/2013/2573/HALT_Paper_February_15.pdf.
Schochet, P. Z.; Burghardt, J. & McConnell, S. (2008). Does Job Corps Work? Impact Findings from
the National Job Corps Study. American Economic Review, 98(5), 1864–86.
Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison study
through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117–143.
Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime
effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation.
Scitovsky, T. (1999). Boredom – an overlooked disease? Challenge: The Magazine of Economic
Affairs. Vol. 42:55
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Taylor-Butts, A. (2010). Where and when youth commit police-reported crimes – 2008. Juristat 30(2).
Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Thornberry, T., Moore, M. & Christenson, R.L. (1985). The Effect of Dropping Out of High School
on Subsequent Criminal Behavior. Criminology, 23, 3-18.
Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J. & Resch, N. (1995). Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Tremblay, R. E., Mâsse, B., Perron, D., LeBlanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1992).
Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent
personality: Longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.
Tremblay, R. E., Mâsse, L. C., Pagani, L. S., & Vitaro, F. (1996). From childhood physical aggression
to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal prevention experiment. In R. DeV. Peters & R. J.
McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse and delinquency (pp. 268-298).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Walker, S., C. Powell, & Grantham-McGregor, S. (1990). Dietary intakes and activity levels of
stunted and non-stunted children in Kingston, Jamaica. part 1. dietary intakes. European journal of
clinical nutrition 44 (7), 527-34.
26
Walker, S., Chang, S., Powell, C. & Grantham-McGregor, S. (2005). Effects of early childhood
psychosocial stimulation and nutritional supplementation on cognition and education in growth-
stunted Jamaican children: prospective cohort study. Lancet 366(9499), 1804-7.
Walker, S., Chang, S., Vera-Hernandez, M. & Grantham-McGregor, S. (2011). Early childhood
stimulation benefits adult competence and reduces violent behavior. Pediatrics 127(5), 849-57.
Webbink, D., P. Koning, S. Vujic & Martin N. G. (2013). Why are criminals less educated than non-
criminals? Evidence from a cohort of young Australian twins. The Journal of Law, Economics, and
Organization 29 (1), 115-44.
Zimring, F. E. (1981). Kids, Groups and Crime: Some Implications of a Well-Known Secret. Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, 3, 867 – 85.
27
Table 1. Summary of studies examining early childhood interventions on education and youth crime
Program Study Start &
country
Target group Age Content Evaluation design Follow-up
age
Educational outcomes Crime outcomes
Length
(years)
Random
Assign.
Sample
size
Academic
Perform.
Educat.
Attainment
NFP
Eckenrode et al.,
2010
1977;
U.S.
Low SES
families; Asian,
African
American,
Latino, White
0-2y Home visits during mother’s
pregnancy and from birth
through the child’s second
birthday
2 Yes NA 15, 19 No effect No effect Reduction in crime (for
girls)
IHDP
McCormick et al.,
2006
1985;
U.S.
Low SES; low
birth weight
newborns
0 – 36m Weekly and bi-weekly home
visits; center-based care; parent
group meetings
3 Yes T=377
C=608
18 Mixed No effect Positive but not
statistically significant
Jamaica
Study
Walker et al.,
1990; 2005; 2011
1986;
Jamaica
Low SES;
ethnic
minorities
9-24m (a) Nutritional supplement
(b) Psychological stimulation
(c) Both supplement and
stimulation
2 Yes T(a)=32
T(b)=30
T(c)=32
C(a)=33
C(b)=32
7-8, 11-12, 17-
18, 22
Positive Positive (weak) Mixed. Treatment group
that received stimulation
was less likely to be
suspended from school.
ABC Clarke &
Campbell, 1998;
Campbell et al.,
2002
1972
U.S.
At-risk children 6w/3m
– 5/8y
Full-time center-based
childcare
5 Yes T=57
C=54
12, 15 Positive Positive No effect
CARE Clarke &
Campbell, 1998;
Campbell et al.,
2002
1978;
U.S.
Children from
high-risk and
low-risk
families
6w/3m
– 5/8y
(a)Full-time center-based
childcare + home visit; (b)
home visit only
2 Yes T(a)=16
T(b)=25
C=23
12, 15, 21 Positive Reduction
in marijuana use
HighScope
Perry
Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1997;
Schweinhart et al.,
2005; Heckman et
al., 2010
1962;
U.S.
Low SES &
low IQ scores;
African
Americans
3/4 – 5y School-year part-day
Preschool program.
Home visits.
2 Yes T=58
C=65
14, 15, 19 Positive Positive (for
girls)
Positive
Chicago
CPC
Reynolds &
Temple, 1995;
Reynolds et al.,
2001
1967;
U.S.
Low SES 3/4-6/9y Preschool: Half-day
school-year
program.
School-age:
Kindergarten and
primary (to 3rd
grade) programs.
3 No
T=1,150
C=389
13, 18-20 Positive
(reading, math;
less grade
retention)
Positive (high
school
diploma), more
sizable effects
for males
Positive (less arrests and
violent arrests)
Head Start Currie, 2001;
Garces et al. 2002;
Deming, 2009
1965;
U.S.
Low SES
3 – 4y Preschool program. Nutrition
programs.
Home visits.
2 No NA 21 Positive (weak) Mixed
FDRP
Lally et al., 1988 1969-
1976;
U.S.
Low SES 6m - 5y Home visits, day care 5 No 108
families
The eighth
grade
Positive Positive
28
Table 2. Summary of studies examining interventions in early school age
Program Study Start &
country
Target group Age Content Evaluation design Follow-up
Educational outcomes Crime outcomes
Length
(years)
Random
Assign.
Sample
size
Academic
Perform.
Educat.
Attainment
SSDP Hawkins et al.,
2001 , 2005;
Durlak et al.,
2011
1985;
U.S.
White, African
Americans, Native
Americans, other
racial groups; low
SES
5th
grade
In-service teacher training,
parenting classes, social
competence training for
children
6 Yes 808
children
and
parents
Age 18, 21 Positive Positive Mixed
MLES Tremblay et al.,
1992, 1996;
Boisjoli et al.,
2007
1984;
Canada
Boys from low
SES, risk-
behavior; children
from Canadian-
born parents
6-7
years
(1st and
2nd
grade)
Preventive Treatment
Training, social skills
training for children, parents
and teachers
2 Yes T=69
C=181
Age 11, 12, 13,
21
Positive Positive on
high-school
graduation
Reduction in youth crime
(weak)
LA's BEST Goldschmidt &
Huang, 2007;
Huang et al.,
2008, 2009
1988;
U.S.
Low SES, low
academic
performance;
disadvantaged
neighborhoods.
80% Hispanic;
12% African
Americans, 8%
others.
Kinderg
arten -
5/6th
grade
After-school program,
learning and social activities
provided by well-trained
staff
5-6 No N=28,000
per year
NA No effect Positive No effect
29
Table 3. Summary of studies examining adolescence interventions
Program Study Start &
country
Target group Age Content Evaluation design Follow-up
Educational outcomes Crime outcomes
Length
(years)
Random
Assign.
Sample
size
Academic
Perform.
Educat.
Attainment
BBBS Tierney et al.,
1995; Grossman
& Tierney, 1998
1992;
U.S.
Low SES, single-
parent households;
African American,
Hispanic, biracial,
Native Americans
10-16 Mentoring programs, meeting
with volunteer mentors
1 Yes T=487
C=472
18 months after
the random
assignment
Positive (for
girls)
Reduction in usage of
substances. Reduced
violence in school.
QOP Rodriguez-Planas,
2012
1995;
U.S.
High-risk juveniles;
Afro Americans,
Hispanic
14-15 Mentoring, educational
services, financial rewards
5 Yes T=580
C=489
Age 19, 21 Positive (weak) Positive (weak) Reduction in criminal
activity for youth in the
top-half of the risk
distribution
ChalleNGe Bloom et al.,
2009; Millenky et
al., 2011;
Millenky et al.,
2013
1993;
U.S.
High school
dropouts,
unemployed. 80%
participants are male.
16-18 Participants live at the program
site (often on a military base).
Education and training
1 Yes N=75,000 During and
shortly after the
program
Positive. GED
or high school
diploma
No effect. Only less
arrested during the
program.
Job Corps Schochet et al.,
2008
1994;
U.S.
Disadvantaged
youth, low SES
16-21 Help in finding work, training 1 Yes N=15,400 During and
shortly after the
program
Positive Mixed. Only during the
program.
EMA Ashworth et al.,
2001, 2002;
Heaver et al.,
2002; Feinstein &
Sabates, 2005
1999,
U.K.
Areas with high
economic
deprivation, low
SES, females and
males
16-18 A weekly money allowance
paid either to young people or
their parents.
2 No N=11,169 One year after
the first
interview
Positive Reduction in youth crime
rates for burglary and
theft (violent crime is not
affected).
BAM Heller et al., 2013 2009;
U.S.
Disadvantaged males 7th-
10th
grade
Interaction with pro-social
adults, after-school
programming, cognitive
behavioral therapy
1 Yes N=2,740 One year after
the random
assignment
Positive Reduction in violent-
crime arrests during
the program year
Halt Ferwerda et al.,
2006; Rud et al.,
2013
2003-
2004;
the
Netherla
nds
Juvenile offenders;
White and other
racial groups
12-18 Community work, learning
assignments
1 Yes T=465
C=480
1-5 years after
the program
Positive Mixed
30
Table 4. Summary of studies examining the effect of education on youth crime
Study Country Source (crime
data)
Research population Sample Evaluation method Input variable Criminal behaviour outcomes
Violent crime Property crime Jacob & Lefgren, 2003
U.S. Official records Males & female aged
10-19
38,339 Neg. Binom. Reg. School attendance Increase Reduction
Luallen, 2006 U.S. Official records Males & females in
“school age”
401,864 Neg. Binom. Reg. School attendance Increase Reduction
Landersø et al., 2013
Denmark Official records Males & females
aged up to 18
98,929
2SLS School attendance Reduction for girls Reduction for boys
Aslund et al., 2012
Sweden Official records Males and females aged 16 and above
116,787 2SLS Educational attainment No significant effect Reduction
Anderson, 2012 U.S. Official
records; self-
report
Males aged 13 to 18 Above 16,000 law enforcement agencies
Dif-in-dif Educational attainment Reduction in the probability of arrest rates for individuals aged 16-18
Machin et al., 2012
U.K. Official records Males & females aged 16-21
125 2SLS Educational attainment Reduction in the probability of criminal behaviour of individuals aged between 16 and 21
Høiseth Brugard & Falch
Norway Official records Males & females aged 16-22
55102 OLS, 2SLS Educational attainment Reduction in the probability of imprisonment
Merlo & Wolpin, 2009
U.S.
Self-reports Afro-Americans; males aged 13 to 22
9,000 Multinomial discrete choice vector autoregression model
Not attending school at age 16
(school dropout)
Increase the probability of committing crime and being incarcerated at age 19-22
Cullen et al., 2006
U.S. Self-report, official records
Afro-Americans, White, Hispanic in 8th grade
14,434 OLS, Probit model for the intention-to-treat
Winning a lottery and high school
enrolment/attendance
Reduction in the self-reported disciplinary incidents and registered arrest rates.
Deming, 2011 U.S. Official records Afro-Americans, White, aged 13-21
10,664 in high school; 11,570 in middle school
OLS, including lottery fixed effects
Wining a lottery for enrolment in
a preferred (middle/high) school
Reduction in crime rates
Table 5. Summary of studies examining the effect of risky behavior on educational outcomes
Study Country Source (crime
data)
Research population Sample Evaluation method Input variable Educational outcomes
Hjalmarsson,
2008
U.S.
Self-reports 27% Afro-
Americans; 21%
Hispanics; rest –
Whites
7,417 Linear probit Arrest, charge, incarceration and
conviction in age of 16 (or
before)
Court intervention in 16 or before
Reduction in the probability of high school graduation.
McGarvey,
Smith, &
Walker, 2007
U.S. Official records Students in schools
in Atlanta, U.S.
61 elementary
schools and 13
middle schools
OLS and 2SLS
Violent incidents in schools and
in the neighbourhood
In-school violent crime is associated with lower academic pass rates.
Webbink et al.,
2012
Australia Retrospective
self-reports
Twins aged 24 to 36 6,267 OLS, fixed effects
on the twins level
Arrest before age of 18
Reduction in the probability of completing senior high school.
TIER WORKING PAPER SERIES
TIER WP 13/06 © TIER 2013
ISBN 978-94-003-0056-9