The experiences that put you on a path to prison are quite extreme. This doesn't mean that what they did as a result of those experiences is O.K. but it does demonstrate that the root causes of crime are frequently in place in childhood and need to be prevented there.
The report analyzes data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Survey of Prison Inmates,” collected in 2016 and released in late 2020. The data show what many in the criminal justice reform movement already know: that the U.S. criminal justice system today locks up the least powerful people in society. Key takeaways include:
* Many, if not most, people in prison grew up struggling financially. 42% of survey respondents said their family received public assistance before they were 18. Respondents also reported uncommonly high levels of homelessness, foster care, and living in public housing before the age of 18.* Most individuals in state prisons report that their first arrest happened when they were children. 38 percent of the people BJS surveyed reported a first arrest before age 16, and 68% reported a first arrest before age 19. The average survey respondent had been arrested over 9 times in their life.* The typical person in state prison is 39 years old and has a 10th grade education, a fact that is most likely linked to youth confinement, which disrupts a young person’s life and schooling.* Half (49%) of people in state prisons meet the criteria for substance use disorder (SUD), and 65% were using an illicit substance in the immediate lead-up to their incarceration, suggesting that many people who are not locked up for drug offenses are still victims of our country’s choice to criminalize substance use rather than treat it as a health issue.
From the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.
As a reference point: "In 2021, the highest level of education of the population age 25 and older in the United States was distributed as follows:
8.9% had less than a high school diploma or equivalent.27.9% had high school graduate as their highest level of school completed.14.9% had completed some college but not a degree.10.5% had an associate degree as their highest level of school completed.23.5% had a bachelor’s degree as their highest degree.14.4% had completed an advanced degree such as a master’s degree, professional degree or doctoral degree."
Thus, the 8.9% of adults who don't finish high school (12% of those age 18 plus, some of whom earn a high school diploma by age 25) account for 62% of prison inmates.
Furthermore, most of the remaining 38% of prison inmates earned high school diplomas but did not have any college education. Even "some college" greatly reduces one's likelihood of going to prison.
2 comments:
Nice top-level summary, but not very useful on the finding of lower-level causes. It's pretty obvious that a person who has already been arrested before age 16 is going to have problems in life including not finishing high school. There are hints, homelessness, receiving public aid and that sort of thing, but still nothing on what is going on below that.
Racism can cause fewer, poorer jobs and schools, for example. What, if anything distinguishes those who do not end up in prison from those who do, given similar environments? The poor black kids in the crappy schools of South Chicago have a harder time getting ahead, but most of them do not end up in prison. Any thoughts you would care to share?
"It's pretty obvious that a person who has already been arrested before age 16 is going to have problems in life including not finishing high school."
FWIW, our juvenile justice system has exactly the opposite premise, and empirically, you are correct and the hypothesis of the juvenile justice system that young serious offenders are more amenable to rehabilitation than older serious offenders, while eminently plausible, is empirically wrong.
"What, if anything distinguishes those who do not end up in prison from those who do, given similar environments? The poor black kids in the crappy schools of South Chicago have a harder time getting ahead, but most of them do not end up in prison."
The difference within difference methodology of economics is alive and well in your thinking, and it is a good methodology (and a surprisingly recent intellectual innovation).
And we do know that while young black men in poor neighborhoods with crappy schools are much more likely to go to prison than college, it certainly isn't everyone.
As I noted in another recent post, in the case of poor black men (both black and white) who are "at risk" as it used to be popular to say, strong involvement in church is one of the bigger discriminants (a conclusion that I think you know if very strongly contrary to my cognitive biases). I've also seen other literature suggesting that a strong, involved parental figure, not necessary a biological parent (some studies argue a strong male parental figure although the data backing up that nuance is weaker) is also a factor. Studies have also shown that being loved as a child makes you more resilient, which isn't a heavily hereditary thing. J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegies" backs the strong involved parental figure hypothesis, doesn't touch religion because he and his family weren't very religious, and suggests the importance of the structure he received as an enlisted soldier in the military. The tradition of British boarding schools for high school the upper class also supports the non-necessity of a biological father's involvement but the importance of structure and strong parent-like figures. I also think that the success of Head Start in poor neighborhoods, while lack of replication when pre-K is universal, suggests that Head Start is providing successful, stable adult exposure and structure (and nutrition and exercise) more than content. Likewise, there is evidence from schools that produce better than typical results of low socio-economic status kids (Denver School of Science and Technology, KIPP, D'Evelyn Catholic schools) that behavioral modification with participant and parent buy-in to doing that is a key component.
Vance's book implicitly also points to the importance of differences in IQ (you don't get straight As at The Ohio State University and graduate from Yale Law if you are dumb), which the psychology literature also supports. But at the level of dropping out v. graduating from HS, ability to behave and conform rather than IQ is probably a big factor suggested by the facts that girls in poor neighborhoods graduate at much higher rates than boys (especially when they don't get pregnant) with the same average genetic endowment and IQ, not coincidentally have less school discipline and juvenile justice involvement, and are less likely to be involved in gang activity. And, lots of HS dropouts later get a GED which requires higher IQ than the median HS graduate.
Post a Comment