The Effects of Education on Crime

Jessica RileyUniversity of Central Florida

2

Introduction

There has always been an issue directly correlating education and its effect on crime due to

the fact that arrest and education data on an individual level does not exist. Unfortunately, the only

way to see actual figures to compare the correlation in data is through the cross examination of the

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the United States Census Bureau with a national or state

level census for dropouts, employment, income, and juvenile delinquency. This is a lot of cross

referencing with an underrepresented estimate of statistics to begin with, thus creating much room

for error in true empirical evidence. Even though there is not a direct arrest and education census,

the cross examination of multiple references does however suggest a large correlation (Lochner and

Moretti 2001).

Despite these circumstances, this paper’s purpose is to discuss the effects, positive or

negative, that education and graduation rates for high school students have on the impact in the

reduction or increase of crime (Lochner and Moretti 2001). There is evidence that suggests

education is correlated with an individual’s future income; the lower or higher an individual’s income

decreases or increases the probability in property and/or violent crime the individual may participate

in (Yildiz, Ocal and Yildirim 2013). Isaac Ehrlich’s research (1971) suggests that students who

voluntarily enroll in school are self-deterred from crime because of their interest in “human capital”

and that one’s self constraint leaves less time for criminal opportunities. There are also specific

characteristics for the dropout student that makes him/her more inclined to crime then other

dropouts (Bjerk 2011). Nevertheless, it is not just the dropouts that commit crimes; there are also

the highly educated individuals who engage in crime as well (Ragatz and Fremouw 2014). From a

different perspective, there is also the proposed brute biosocial theory such as Lee Ellis’ (2005)

Evolutionary Neuroandrogenic Theory (ENA) that suggests high intelligence and executive

cognitive functioning (ECF) are the two inhibiters of competitive/victimizing behavior (CVB).

3

Literature Review

The Dropout

It should not come to a surprise that the result of an individuals’ income and the outcomes

in the work force is much poorer for those who drop out of school before the twelfth grade than

the individuals who actually finish high school (Rumberger 2013). The high school dropout is also

more frequently involved in criminal activity and arrested at higher rates than those who graduate

from high school. It’s been found that keeping children in school for only a few months longer as

opposed to dropping out has a major positive impact in their future activities and behavior.

However on a side note, there are also specific types of dropouts that make up the majority of those

involved in criminal and delinquent activity.

Those who drop out of school to work or take care of the family for instance, actually

engage in similar rates of income and employment and less likely to enter criminal activity as the

high school graduate. This is because this specific dropout group does not lack the motivation to do

better; they are just substituting one institution for another. The dropouts who leave school because

they “didn’t like it” or other internal and behavioral reasons are the specific individuals who are

involved in criminal activity and have higher arrest rates. Due to the possibility that most of the

dropouts in the latter group are unemployed and inactive for months after leaving school, they end

up missing out on education that other students in school are still engaged in. Not only are they

missing out on learning academically, they are missing out on informal education and skills to get

them in the work force (Bjerk 2011).

Another attribute of the dropout is that juvenile delinquency is a group phenomenon and

that those who are friends with juvenile delinquents are largely more involved in criminal activities

then those whose peer groups are with the non-juvenile delinquents. The peer groups evolve

4

because they share the same self-interest and egotistical characteristics. It’s not that the delinquent

peer groups have deficiencies in social skills per se, but that they are undeterred and less sensitive to

the others in the non-delinquent group. Furthermore, there are gender differences in feelings of

empathy among these groups; that the male is less likely to be empathetic thus, creating dominance

in the social groups of delinquency (Smângs 2010).

What’s more to these findings, the United Kingdom had found that further education in

young males reduces property and violent crimes. Also found in the UK, research showed with each

percentage increase of male students in school results in the almost doubling that percentage of

reduction in criminal activities. With all of this, it’s not the education system purely that stops

illegitimate activities; there are more attributes to the institution that contributes to the deterrence of

crime (Machin, Marie and Vujic 2012).

The Institution

It has long been documented that one’s attachment and commitment to a conventional

institution such as school, especially in young adults, will give him/her less incentive to commit

criminal activities (Ehrlich 1971). This also goes along with Travis Hirschi’s (1969) Social Bonds

Theory. This theory states that the reason we do not all commit crime is because of our social

bonds, and that deficient social bonds increase the probability one becomes a product of crime

(Hirschi 1969). Nevertheless, it’s not just the mere attachment to a conventional institution that

deters one from crime but also his/her involvement; for example, if a student has an adequate

school attendance, the student is then left with less time to contribute to acts of criminality. For

young adults and dropouts, the type of crime that is most common is property crime due to the

below average income and the lower perceived cost of crime and consequences. If one is to stay in

school he/she will be spending more time specializing in more legitimate means while the dropout

5

has more opportunity to spend time specializing in the illegitimate means. Similarly, the cost of

crime is perceived to be higher in the high school student and graduate due to his/her investment of

“human capitol” or gain he/she receives from an education as opposed to the perception of the cost

of crime for the dropout (Ehrlich 1971). Thus again, it is not just the education or the institution

that an education provides that deters crime in young adults. In addition to these elements, the

future income or lack thereof in consequence of an individual dropping out of school has a large

correlation to crime as well (Yildiz 2013).

The Income

Those who commit property crime begin to do so at a young age. This is said, because the

lack of schooling and the lack of legitimate means for a young adult are scarce for the dropout.

Furthermore, one may also participate in property crime at a young age due to child labor laws

restricting him/her from work and obtaining actual legitimate means (Ehrlich 1971). The dropout as

described previously commits significantly more property crime and is involved in more drug sales

than the individual committed to school. The dropout is also in and out of the criminal justice

system more frequently and for longer periods of time in life in comparison to the twelfth grade

graduate. Likewise, there is substantially more criminal activity in individuals in their early twenties

who dropped out of high school (Bjerk 2011). The lack of education that a person may have can

possibly determine one’s future income; it can also determine the environment in which one lives in.

There is no question that the higher the level of poverty is in an area, the higher the levels of crime

there will be (Rumberger 2013). For example, someone who lives in poverty because of being poorly

suited for the labor market raises a family in the high crime area. The children become more

susceptible to the criminal behavior; thus, the children become criminals themselves and possibly

stuck in poverty for the next and future generations (Enrich 1971; Rumberger 2013).

6

There is however, a decrease of criminals and criminal activity the higher the income level of

the individual. If the standard low level of education was replaced with a standard of a high school

diploma or higher education there would be a three and a half percent decline in criminal activity.

Another option to reduce criminality and property crime would be to increase wages. If minimum

wage was increased more than two times, there would be six times the amount of reduced crime

(Yildiz 2013).

In addition to the seriousness of the amount of property crimes committed by those who

dropout due to lack of income, there is also a problem with recidivism among the property crime

offenders (Bjerk 2011; Hosser and Giebel 2012). Recidivism is the returning of the criminal justice

system once already released. It is found that the individuals that are at highest risk for relapse or re-

offending are those who commit small property crimes. The study was done with a highly dangerous

group of murderers in comparison with the small property crime offenders. Those who relapsed

more frequently, had higher rates of recidivism and were less successful in the aftercare from the

release of prison was the property crime group (Hosser and Giebel 2012). So, not only are those

who drop out of school also more susceptible to property crimes, they are more likely to engage in

crime for longer durations and most at risk to become the adult criminal (Bjerk 2011; Hosser and

Giebel 2012).

The Predispositioned Male

Furthermore in regards to criminal activity among youth, there is a recognized theory that

relates education and criminal activity that is worth noting. The theory is Lee Ellis’ Evolutionary

Neuroandrogenic Theory (ENA). Ellis’ theory (2005) is specifically directed at young males. The

male produces androgens which is responsible for creating the male reproductive organs. A male can

inherit high, average or low androgen levels that are passed on from the parents. These androgen

7

levels also affect the male’s testosterone levels which high levels of testosterone have been blamed in

many areas for the male dominance in the criminal justice system. The high androgen levels in a

male contribute to right brain thinking over left brain (more language oriented) thinking. Androgens

correspondingly have an effect on the limbic system which is liable for emotions and is very close to

the frontal lobe that controls character. All of these attributes in a male, if abnormally high, are

considered to promote competitive/victimizing behavior (CVB) and can reduce a man’s reactions to

basic survival skills. The inhibitors to CVB in males is high intelligence and the ability to execute

long term planning also called executive cognitive functioning (ECF) (Barkley, Godzinsky and

DePaul 1992). The reason that high intelligence can control CVB actions is due to the reasoning

that the more intelligent one is, the higher the probability that the individual will respond to an

unpleasant situation in a more sophisticated and analytical manner. ECF is also considered to inhibit

CVB because of the ability to see future consequences of one’s actions. In sum, the ENA theory

expresses that males are predisposed to criminal behavior due to their biological makeup and what

stops one from making criminal acts over the other is their education and their ability to see the

future consequences of one’s actions (Barkley, Godzinsky and DePaul 1992; Ellis 2005).

The Smart Guy

The complete reverse effect of education on crime is the crime that is a result of the highly

intelligent and educated individual (Ehrlich 1971). White-collar criminals often fall in a certain

demographic group that holds a high school diploma and/or higher education degree and composed

mostly of Caucasian males. In contrast to the dropout, a white-collar offender tends to be older,

employed, with no previous signs or evidence of drug abuse and does not have previous convictions

or negative interactions with the criminal justice system (Fremouw and Ragatz 2014). White-collar

offenders do however have similar behavioral characteristics with the high school dropout (Bjerk

8

2011; Ragatz and Fremouw 2014). The white-collar offender is most likely inapt in

conscientiousness, egotistical, self-interested and less agreeable and furthermore, has less behavioral

self-control than the white-collar professional that is not an offender (Fremouw and Ragatz 2014).

What’s more is that the professional criminal and the juvenile delinquent share a similar motive

(Ehrlich 1971; Fremouw and Ragatz 2014). It is found that the main motives for those who commit

white collar crimes such as embezzlement, mail and tax fraud, are for personal and financial gain.

Additionally, it is thought that there is a correlation between psychopath traits and white-collar

crime. This is because a person that has the ability and characteristics to be charming and

impressive, as a psychopath, makes him/her successful in a work environment (Fremouw and

Ragatz 2014). In conclusion, the down side of an education as an effect on crime is that some may

use their intelligence to help them commit fraud in a company and execute smarter crimes (Ehrlich

1971).

Implications

By increasing the required age and grade that a student may choose to drop out of school

could possibly reduce the person’s inclination to get involved in criminal activities. High school

graduation has significant effects on reducing criminal activity. If there was just a one percent

increase in males’ high school graduation, it’s said that the United States would save 1.4 billion a year

in costs for criminal actions. This would amount to between $1,100-2,100 per extra graduate a year.

This is a huge incentive for the United States to make a policy and require high school graduation

for students to keep an individual from dropping out or at least keep him/her in school till the age

of 18 if he/she cannot pass (Lochner and Moretti 2001). With this in place, the students benefit by

having the education and possible higher income in the future and society benefits by reducing its

crime and costs for crime (Lochner and Moretti 2001; Rumberger 2013). The implications that

9

could be applied for the professional criminal would be for business to screen for psychopathic

traits as this is seen to be a common characteristic with individuals involved in white-collar crimes

(Fremouw and Ragatz 2014).

Another implication to aid in all areas would be to increase wages. Education undoubtedly

reduces criminality, but raising labor wages two times or more doubled the reduction in crime over

the effects of raising one’s education (Yildiz 2013). This could apply for both juvenile and

professional criminals because the increase in wages would reduce the motives of personal and

financial gain that both offenders share in characteristics (Ehrlich 1971; Yildiz 2013; Fremouw and

Ragatz 2014).

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many different ways that education can affect the outcome of crime

and a child’s future. The extent of attributes that can affect an individual’s future is not limited to

what has been mentioned in this report. There are many other attributes that can also effect a

student’s probability of staying in school, such as the parent’s education and involvement, the

number of siblings in a household and the state of the economy that have not been mentioned due

to the scope of this paper (Hill 1978). However, it can be as simple as just a few additional months

of school before an individual drops out to have a major positive impact and improve one’s future

greatly to reduce the chance of delinquency (Bjerk 2011). At any given moment, there are

approximately 93,000 youths in juvenile justice facilities across the United States. The U.S. as a

whole spends approximately $7.1 million a day, this equaling to $5.7 billion per year imprisoning the

youth (Andrews, Fathi, Huffman and Leone 2009). If the United States could increase its male high

school graduation rates by just 1%, it’s said that we could save 1.4 billion a year of that money spent

on crimes committed by our youth (Machin 2012). And with every percent of high school graduates

10

that increases, there is a double percent reduction of property and violent crimes among youth

(Machin 2012).

In contrast, it is estimated that the cost of white collar crime is over $500 billion to possibly

1 trillion a year (Ragatz and Fremouw 2010). Even though the losses financially are substantially

greater for white collar crime, the number of incarcerations for the youth still triples white collar

incarcerations (U.S. Census Bureau 2012; Fremouw and Ragatz 2014)

With the effects of education on our youth, it would be wise to ensure that the nation sees to

their graduation as most of them have not reached an adult age. Implications should be made to

protect the minor by reducing his/her chances of engaging in crime (Lochner and Moretti 2001).

These dropouts become a product of their environment and circumstances to a situation that can be

and should be helped (Rumberger 2013). Whereas in difference, white collar offenders are not a

minor and is well educated of the future consequences, creates their own circumstances and

environment; however, is most likely to suffer from psychopathic traits and other personality

disorders (Fremouw and Ragatz 2014).

11

Sources

1. Barkley, Russell, Godzinsky, George and DePaul, Greg. 1992. “Frontal Lobe Functions in

Attention deficit Disorder With and Without Hyperactivity: A Review and Research Report.” Journal

of Abnormal Child Psychology 20: 163–88.

2. Bjerk, David. 2011. “Re-examining the impact of dropping out on criminal and labor outcomes in

early adulthood” Economics of Education Review 31(2012):110– 122

3. Ehrlich, Isaac. 1975. “On the Relation between Education and Crime.” Pp. 313-338 in Education,

Income and Human Behavior. National Bureau of Economic Research edited by J.F. Thomas. NBER.

4. Ellis, Lee. 2005 “A Theory Explaining Biological Correlates of Criminality” European Journal of

Criminology 2(3):287-315

5. Frerich, Nina and Illescas, Santiago Redondo. 2014 “Crime and Justice Reinvestment in Europe:

Possibilities and Challenges.” Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research,

Policy, and Practice 9(1):13-49,

6. Groot, Wim, Rud, Iryna, VanKlaveren, Chris and Maassenvanden Brink, Henriette. 2014. “The

externalities of crime: The effect of criminal involvement of parents on the educational attainment

of their children” Economics of Education Review 38(2014):89–103

7. Hill, Russell. 2001 “Capacities, Opportunities and educational Investments: The case of the High

school dropout” Review of Economics & Statistics (61)1:9-20

8. Hirschi, Travis 1969 “Social Bonds/Social Control Theory” Pp. 55-69 in Causes of delinquency.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

12

9. Hosser, Daniela and Markus Giebel, Stefan. 2012 “Criminal careers of young adult offenders after

release” Springer-Verlag CEJOR 21(2013):411–413

10. Kuhn, André 1996 “Incarceration Rates: Europe versus USA” European Journal on Criminal

Policy and Research 4(3):6

11. Lochner, Lance and Moretti, Enrico. 2001. “The Effect of Education on Crime Evidence from

Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports.” National Bureau of Economic Research 463:346:034:861

12. Machin, Stephen, Olivier, Marie and Vujic, Suncˇica. 2012 “Youth Crime and Education

Expansion” German Economic Review 13(4): 366–384

13. Ocal, Oguz, Yildrim, Ertugrul and Yildiz, Rifat. 2014. “The Effects of Unemployment, income

and Education on Crime: Evidence from Individual Data.” Internal Journal of Economics Perspectives

7(2):32-40

14. Ragatz, Laurie MA and Fremouw, William 2010 “A Critical Examination of

Research on the Psychological Profiles of White-Collar Criminals” Journal of Forensic Psychology

Practice, 10(5):373-402

15. Russell W. Rumberger and Sun Ah Lim 2009 “Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of

25 Years of Research” California Dropout Research Project # 15. Santa Barbara, CA: University of

California

16. Smângs, Mattias. 2010 “Delinquency, Social Skills and the Structure of Peer Relations: Assessing

Criminological Theories by Social Network Theory” Social Forces. Farmington Hills, Michigan:

University of North Carolina Press

13

17. Tara Andrews, David C. Fathi, Katharine and Huffman, Peter Leone 2009 The Costs of

Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense. Washington, DC: Justice Policy

Institute

18. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Law Enforcement, Courts, and Prisons 213, Statistical Abstract of the

United States: U.S Census retrieved from http://www.census.gov/en.html December 9, 2014