Abstract
Research has linked the role of education to delinquency, but much of the focus has been on general population samples and with little attention to demographic differences. Employing a cumulative disadvantage framework that integrates elements of informal social control and labeling theories, this article examines whether academic achievement serves as a positive turning point and re-directs juvenile delinquents away from subsequent offending. Attention is also given to race/sex contingencies. Using a sample of 4,147 delinquents released from Florida correctional institutions (86% male, 57% non-White, average age at release = 16.8 years), propensity score analysis yielded two findings: youth with above average academic achievement while incarcerated were significantly more likely to return to school post-release, and youth with above average attendance in public school were significantly less likely to be re-arrested in the 1-year post-release period. While the academic gains were pronounced among African-American males, the preventive effects of school attendance are similar across race and sex, suggesting that education can be a part of a larger prevention effort that assists juvenile delinquents in successful community re-entry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Her perspective also argues that violent crime among Black males is due to their attempt to negotiate masculine identities in the face of structural constrains that make claiming valued identities difficult. On the other hand, “females who bring to interactions traditional beliefs about gender are likely to define situations such that delinquency seems undesirable, because they will be likely to view law violation as inappropriate for their gender. Females who are less accepting of traditional gender ideologies, in contrast, define situations such that delinquency is a more likely outcome” (Heimer 1995: 150).
An anonymous reviewer noted that the school achievement and participation measures used herein can be considered and interpreted in several ways. Specifically, there is likely to be potential growth in skills coming from education but also positive labeling/renegotiation of labels insofar as prospective employers and partners react positively to individuals who have attained educational success. Of course, the two attributions are not mutually exclusive but, it is important to be explicit that educational experiences and attainment act upon re-offending in much the same way as other life events (marriage and employment) because they represent positive turning points/events that open doors for conventional success, broadly defined, and may re-orient previous crime trajectories.
The continuous measure of academic achievement while incarcerated was dichotomized at the mean to distinguish youth who had excelled in the classroom while incarcerated relative to those who had under-achieved academically based on the number of academic credits earned and the proportion of academic credits relative to the total of academic and elective credits. Similarly, those youth who had above average attendance in public schools post-release were differentiated from those with below average attendance. We performed several alternative cut-points as a sensitivity analysis, including a median split and another one in which the measures were trichotomized and cases in the upper third of the distribution were defined as high academic achievers and exhibiting high school attendance. The results using these alternative cut-points were substantively the same as those produced when using the mean as the cut-point.
We were unable to compare the initial cohort of cases to those analyzed using PSM because the dataset created when the PSM models were generated did not include the case identifier (which was originally prohibited from inclusion by confidentiality agreements). Only the variables used in the models and those generated in STATA, such as whether those cases that matched were in the control/experimental group and cases that did not match, were available. And although we are unable to determine precisely the overlap between the two samples, we are confident that the overlap was very good. Nevertheless, we compared the mean values of the covariates in the PSM models reported in Tables 3 and 4 across cases that matched versus those that did not. For Table 3, i.e., academic achievement while incarcerated and returning to school post-release, we found the following: Of the 11 covariates in the model, four of the mean differences across the matched and non-matched cases were not significant. Of those that were significant, the percentage difference in the mean was below 5% for one variable, two were between 5 and 10%, and four were above 10%. For Table 4, i.e., attendance in school post-release and re-arrest, the mean differences across the matched and non-matched cases were not significant for seven of the covariates, one was different by less than 5%, and three greater than 10% different. While these comparisons indicate some instances in which there is some level of variability across the matched and non-matched cases, we do not believe that they are egregious enough to prevent faith in the analyses, results, and conclusions with the appropriate caveats noted above.
The 11 covariates in Table 1 were used to conduct the propensity score matching. Balance across the treated and comparison groups was achieved as evidenced by no significant differences in the propensity scores within the strata, indicating exposure to the treatment (above average academic achievement and above average school attendance) is random. The covariates of age at release and length of incarceration could possibly be considered inappropriate for inclusion in the matching process because they could be considered occurring after the treatment assignment. For the following reasons, it was determined that retaining these variables was appropriate. First, the length of incarceration and age at release have consistently been shown to be important control variables in recidivism studies and excluding them would reduce the explanatory power of the models. Second, these measures would likely influence treatment assignment because both could impact how much education a youth receives while incarcerated and their level of attendance in school post release. Finally, research has included these same variables in propensity score matching analysis in examining the impact of the treatment effect of Supermax confinement on recidivism (Mears and Bales 2009).
References
Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: An analysis of the effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures, 1991–1992. Law and Society Review, 31, 601–634.
Ambrose, D. M., & Lester, D. (1988). Recidivism in juvenile offenders: Effects of education and length of stay. Psychological Reports, 63, 778.
Apel, R. J., & Sweeten, G. (2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 543–562). New York: Springer.
Baltodano, H. M., Harris, P. J., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Academic achievement in juvenile corrections: Examining the impact of age, ethnicity, and disability. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 261–379.
Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41, 1287–1318.
Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67–88.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.
Blank, R. M. (2001). An overview of trends in social and economic well-being, by race. In N. J. Smelser, W. J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming (Vol. I). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Blau, P., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley.
Boehm, T. P., Thistle, P. D., & Schlottmann, A. (2006). Rates and race: An analysis of racial disparities in mortgage rates. Housing Policy Debate, 17, 109–149.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2009). “Comments made in ‘Introduction’ section” of Becoming Deviant. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction (written by David Matza and edited by Thomas G. Blomberg).
Bridges, G. S., Crutchfield, R. D., & Simpson, E. E. (1987). Crime, social structure and criminal punishment: White and nonwhite rates of imprisonment. Social Problems, 34, 345–361.
Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.
Brier, N. (1994). Targeted treatment for adjudicated youth with learning disabilities: Effects on recidivism. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 215–222.
Brown, J. D., Riley, A. W., Walrath, C. M., Leaf, P. J., & Valdez, C. (2008). Academic achievement and school functioning among nonincarcerated youth involved with the juvenile justice system. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 59–75.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 261–291.
Charles, K. K., Hurst, E., & Sephens, M., Jr. (2006). Exploring racial differences in vehicle loan rates. Working Paper, NBER. April 2006.
Cohen, M. A., Piquero, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2010). The monetary value of early childhood interventions: Calculating the cost of bad outcomes for at-risk youth, and the benefits of interventions to reduce them. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 391–434.
Cullen, F. T. (2009). “Comments made in ‘Introduction’ section” of Becoming Deviant, written by David Matza and edited by Thomas G. Blomberg. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
De Li, S. (1999). Legal sanctions and youths’ status achievement: A longitudinal study. Justice Quarterly, 16, 377–401.
DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271–297.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.
Finn, J. D. (2006). The adult lives of at-risk students: The roles of attainment and engagement in high school, statistical analysis report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248–259.
Schott Foundation. (2010). Yes we can: The Schott 50 state report on public education and black males. MA: Cambridge.
Fritzberg, G. J. (2001). Less than equal: A former urban schoolteacher examines the causes of educational disadvantagement. The Urban Review, 33, 107–129.
Gillborn, D., & Mirza, H. S. (2000). Educational inequality: Mapping race, class, and gender. A synthesis of research evidence. London, UK: Office of Standards in Education. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk. Accessed 23 Sep 2010.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heckman, J. J., & Hotz, V. J. (1989). Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: The case of manpower training. Chicago: University of Chicago, Economics Research Center.
Heimer, K. (1995). Gender, race, and the pathways to delinquency: An interactionist perspective. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality (pp. 140–173). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heimer, K. (1996). Gender, interaction, and delinquency: Testing a theory of differential social control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 39–61.
Heinrich, C. J., & Holzer, H. (2010). Improving education and employment for disadvantaged young men: Proven and promising strategies. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412086. Accessed 24 Sep 2010.
Hoe, Y. (2007). Gender differences in educational attainment. State University of New York at Buffalo, MAI 45/06, Publication Number: 1444000. http://gradworks.umi.com/14/44/1444000.html. Accessed 23 Sep 2010.
Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of white women and women of color. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 833–855.
Katsiyannis, A., & Archwamety, T. (1997). Factors related to recidivism among delinquent youth in a state correctional facility. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 43–57.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leblanc, L. A., & Pfannenstiel, J. C. (1991). Unlocking learning: Chapter 1 in correctional facilities. Rockville: Westat, Inc.
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. The American Economic Review, 94, 155–189.
Massey, J. L., & Krohn, M. D. (1986). A longitudinal examination of an integrated social process model of deviant behavior. Social Forces, 63, 106–134.
McWhirter, E. H. (1997). Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 124–140.
Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47, 801–836.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
National Academy of Sciences. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. In M. S. Donovan & C. T. Cross (Eds.), Committee on minority representation in special education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Fast facts: What are the trends in the educational level of the United States population. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27. Accessed 23 Sep 2010.
O’Rand, A. M. (1996). The precious and the precocious: Understanding cumulative disadvantage and cumulative advantage over the life course. Gerontologist, 36, 230–238.
Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Uneever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., & Gordon, J. A. (2010). Never too late: Public opinion about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 12, 187–207.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm: Background and recent developments. In M. Tonry (Ed.), In crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30, pp. 359–506). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., & Parker, K. (2002). Race, local life circumstances, and crime. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 654–670.
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339–345.
Ray, M. C., & Downs, W. R. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169–194.
Rosenfield, S., Phillips, J., & White, H. (2006). Gender, race, and the self in mental health and crime. Social Problems, 53, 161–185.
Rubin, D. B. (2008). For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 808–840.
Rutter, M., & Rutter, M. (1993). Developing minds: Challenge and continuity across the life span. New York: Basic Books.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime, delinquency, advances in criminological theory (Vol. 7, pp. 133–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Smelser, N. J., Wilson, W. J., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.). (2001). America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.
Stewart, E. A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575–604.
Sweeten, G. (2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by arrest and court involvement. Justice Quarterly, 23, 462–480.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and implications. Review of Research in Education, 22, 195–247.
Thornberry, T. P. (1972). The effect of legal disposition on subsequent criminality. In F. Adler & G. O. W. Mueller (Eds.), Politics, crime and the international scene: An inter-American focus (pp. 330–343). San Juan, Puerto Rico: North-South Center Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blomberg, T.G., Bales, W.D. & Piquero, A.R. Is Educational Achievement a Turning Point for Incarcerated Delinquents Across Race and Sex?. J Youth Adolescence 41, 202–216 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9680-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9680-4