Unpacking the Relationship Between Adolescent Employment and Antisocial

Behavior: A Matched Samples Comparison

Robert Apel, University at Albany

Robert Brame, University of South Carolina

Shawn D. Bushway, University of Maryland

Amelia Haviland, RAND Corporation

Daniel Nagin, Carnegie Mellon University

Ray Paternoster, University of Maryland

Most Youths Gain Formal Work Experience by Age 18

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18

85% of teenagers work in a formal job by their 18th birthday

Age

Historical Backdrop• American history reveals a deep ambivalence

about the effects of working among young people.• On the one hand, a deeply entrenched tradition of

child labor - in agriculture and industry (service industries in past few decades).

• On the other hand, a 20th century tendency to restrict access to employment by young people.

• But … in late adolescence and in moderation could formal work experience be beneficial?

Prevailing View from the 1970’s

• National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education (1976): “The Panel urges the removal of those regulations… that handicap and limit the employment of adolescents.”

• Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1979): Discussed employment as an alternative to crime.

• Initial empirical studies found that high school employment was associated with positive early adult outcomes: higher wages, better jobs, and less unemployment.

Empirical Findings - Work & Crime

• Over two dozen peer-reviewed studies find youth employment is correlated with antisocial behavior even after statistically controlling for numerous confounders.

• Results are similar for various outcome variables:– Substance use– Property and violent delinquency– Arrest

• Adverse consequences appear to result from 20+ hours per week - often referred to as “high-intensity” work.

National Research Council Panel (1998)

“Following the majority of the evidence to date… the committee strongly supports a limit of 20 hours per week during the school year… This standard should be based on the extensive research about the adverse effects of high-intensity work while school is in session.”

Current Research Project• Contemporary criminological theories can be invoked to

explain either beneficial or harmful work effects.• Careful attention to antecedent risk of problem behavior

seems crucial for reaching an understanding of the work-crime relationship.

• Logic of our approach:• Identify subset of individuals who have not worked

before age 16.• Divide this population into two groups: intensive workers

at age 16 and everyone else.• Among individuals with a particular antecedent risk

profile, do age 16 workers and non-workers exhibit differences in criminal involvement at age 16?

Data Overview

• 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: N = 8,894.• Cross-sectional sample: N = 6,748.• Individuals who were 12-13 years old in 1996: N = 2,720.• No formal work prior to age 16: N = 1,469.• Work-delinquency correspondence at age 16: N = 1,185.• Valid data on age 16 employment and delinquency: N = 1,131.• Valid data on antisocial peer exposure: N = 1,066.• Treatment effect of interest

– Outcome = proportion of individuals who engage in crime (vandalism, theft, aggravated assault, selling drugs) or report substance use at age 16 (smoked cigarettes, smoked marijuana, or drank alcohol).

– Treatment = involvement in intensive work (20+ hours per week for at least one week during the school year) at age 16.

Antecedent Risk

• Complicated concept with multiple indicators.• Risk develops and evolves over time.• Our measurement of antecedent risk attends

to both of these issues:– Developmental trajectories of criminal behavior

from ages 11-15.– Developmental trajectories of substance use from

ages 11-15.– Exposure to antisocial peers at school in the year

before the first interview.

Criminal Behavior, Substance Use, and Antisocial Peer Exposure

• Criminal Behavior Variety Score (Range = 0-7)– Vandalism– Petty Theft (< $50)– Major Theft (> $50)– Motor Vehicle Theft– Other Property Crime– Aggravated Assault– Selling Drugs

• Substance Use Variety Score (Range = 0-3)– Smoked Cigarettes– 1+ Drinks of Alcohol– Smoked Marijuana

• Antisocial Peers (at least half of school peers do each of the following; Range = 0-5):– Smoke cigarettes– Get drunk at least once a month– Belong to a gang that does illegal activities– Use marijuana, inhalants, or other drugs– Cut classes or skip school

After matching on previous offending, workers differ from non-workers on10 of 111 possiblepre-age 16 covariates in the NLSY97.

Before matching on previous offending,Workers differed from non-workers on33 of 111 possible pre-age 16 covariatesIdentified in the NLSY91.

Matched Groups• We classify individuals into groups based on their

history of substance use, their history of criminal behavior, and their exposure to antisocial peers.

• Theoretically, 96 groups are possible (4 substance use groups x 4 crime groups x 6 antisocial peer exposure groups) but 16 of these 96 groups are unpopulated.

• Within each of the 80 populated groups, we seek to compare the workers and the nonworkers - our hope is that these will be “apples-to-apples” comparisons since all members of each group will share similar developmental histories and similar exposure to delinquent peers.

Case Attrition• Some of the groups are more heavily populated

than others.• In 17 of the groups, we cannot make

comparisons between workers and nonworkers (11 groups comprised of entirely workers; 6 groups comprised of nonworkers).

• We lose a total of 64 cases (58 nonworkers and 6 workers) because of lack of comparisons.

• This provides us with a final sample size of 1,002 cases.

1 C

Ss

Css

PATE xNN

Types of Treatment Effect EstimatesPopulation Average Treatment Effect

Where s refers to the number of strata, Ns refersto the number of individuals in stratum s, and ΔCs

is equal to the prevalence of criminal involvement for age 16 workers minus the prevalence for age 16 non-workers in stratum s.

Average Effect of Treatment on the Treated

|

1 C

SW s

Css W

ATE T xNN

Where s refers to the number of strata, NW refersto the total number of individuals who work atage 16 in stratum s, and NW is the number ofindividuals who work in stratum s. The ATE-T isobtained by weighting the stratum level estimates by the distribution of workers across the strata instead of the distribution of the full sample across the strata.

Conclusions• Our “naïve” criminogenic work effect can be attributed to the fact

that individuals who have developed and matured within a context of high risk behaviors and a preponderance of antisocial peers at school are over-represented among high-intensity workers.

• Intensive work effects among high-risk individuals range from inert to possiblly beneficial.

• Some of the work effects for lower-risk groups are criminogenic but these tend to be small and not statistically significant.

• We believe there is considerable value in situating discussions about work effects within the larger context of what is occurring in adolescents’ lives when employment becomes commonplace.

• Grist for useful theory development.