Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Criminal Behavior? Megan Kurlychek University of South Carolina Robert Brame.

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

Megan KurlychekUniversity of South Carolina

Robert BrameUniversity of South Carolina

Shawn Bushway

University of Maryland

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 can’t work in a gun shop).• Discretionary hiring rejections

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%.

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.

Risk of New Offenses By Number of Prior Offenses(1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort Males, N=13,160)

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 (2003:946): “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.”

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.

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

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.

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?

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% > Group 2% - “Persistence”• Group 1% < Group 2% - “Redemption”

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.

Study #1 - Data OverviewSample 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.

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%

Probability of Failure at Age 25-26

Another Perspective

• Let’s 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.

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.

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?

Hazard Rate Trend for Age 18 Nonoffenders (N = 12,151)

Arrest Hazard Rate by Age (Age 18 Nonoffenders)

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

Age

Hazard

Rate

Hazard Rate Trend for Age 18 Offenders (N = 1,009)

Arrest Hazard Rate by Age (Age 18 Offenders)

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

19.0

19.3

19.7

20.0

20.3

20.7

21.0

21.3

21.7

22.0

22.3

22.7

23.0

23.3

23.7

24.0

24.3

24.7

25.0

25.3

25.7

26.0

26.3

26.7

Age

Hazard

Rate

Hazard Rate Trend for Both Groups

Arrest Hazard Rate by Age

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.180

19.0

19.3

19.7

20.0

20.3

20.7

21.0

21.3

21.7

22.0

22.3

22.7

23.0

23.3

23.7

24.0

24.3

24.7

25.0

25.3

25.7

26.0

26.3

26.7

Age

Hazard

Rate

Age 18 Offenders

Age 18 Nonoffenders

Adult Hazard Rates for Age-18 Violent and Non-Violent Offenders

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).

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.

Probability of Failure at Age 25-32

Probability of Failure at Age 28-32

Hazard Rate Trend for Juvenile Offenders and Nonoffenders

Hazard Rate Trend for Age 18 Offenders and Nonoffenders

Hazard Rate Trend for Age 19 Offenders and Nonoffenders

Hazard Rate Trend for Age 20 Offenders and Nonoffenders

Hazard Rate Trend for Young Adult Offenders and Nonoffenders

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.

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.