Offending from Childhood to Late Middle Age: Recent Results from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (SpringerBriefs in Criminology) 1071633341, 9781071633342

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Criminology David P. Farrington · Alex R. Piquero · Wesley G. Jennings · Darrick Jolliffe

Offending from Childhood to Late Middle Age Recent Results from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development Second Edition

SpringerBriefs in Criminology

SpringerBriefs in Criminology present concise summaries of cutting edge research across the fields of Criminology and Criminal Justice. It publishes small but impactful volumes of between 50-125 pages, with a clearly defined focus. The series covers a broad range of Criminology research from experimental design and methods, to brief reports and regional studies, to policy-related applications. The scope of the series spans the whole field of Criminology and Criminal Justice, with an aim to be on the leading edge and continue to advance research. The series will be international and cross-disciplinary, including a broad array of topics, including juvenile delinquency, policing, crime prevention, terrorism research, crime and place, quantitative methods, experimental research in criminology, research design and analysis, forensic science, crime prevention, victimology, criminal justice systems, psychology of law, and explanations for criminal behavior. SpringerBriefs in Criminology will be of interest to a broad range of researchers and practitioners working in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research and in related academic fields such as Sociology, Psychology, Public Health, Economics and Political Science.

David P. Farrington • Alex R. Piquero Wesley G. Jennings • Darrick Jolliffe

Offending from Childhood to Late Middle Age Recent Results from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development Second Edition

David P. Farrington Institute of Criminology Cambridge University Cambridge, UK

Alex R. Piquero Department of Sociology and Criminology University of Miami Coral Gables, FL, USA

Wesley G. Jennings Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies University of Mississippi University, MS, USA

Darrick Jolliffe School of Law and Criminology University of Greenwich London, UK

ISSN 2192-8533     ISSN 2192-8541 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Criminology ISBN 978-1-0716-3334-2    ISBN 978-1-0716-3335-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3335-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2013, 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.

Preface

This book, like its first edition published in 2013, advances knowledge about the development of (official and self-reported) offending from childhood to late middle age, in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD). The CSDD is a prospective longitudinal study of 411 London males who were originally assessed at age 8 in 1961. They have been followed up to the present, in criminal records and personal interviews. The first edition analyzed convictions up to age 56, based on criminal record searches up to 2011. This book extends these analyses to age 61, based on a later criminal record search in 2017. All chapters in the first edition have been updated. The greatest changes are to Chap. 3 on official criminal careers and Chap. 5 on trajectories of offending, which are both based on new analyses of convictions up to age 61. Chapter 4, as in the first edition, compares official and self-reported offending up to age 47. Also as in the first edition, Chap. 2 reviews key results from the CSDD published up to 2012. However, Chap. 6 is completely new in reviewing key results published in 2013–2023. Also, Chap. 8 is completely new in listing all CSDD publications in 2013–2023. Earlier publications were listed in the first edition. The CSDD is a unique study of offending, in following up hundreds of males for over 50 years, from childhood up to their 60s, in having as many as nine personal interviews spanning a 40-year period up to the late 40s, and in having a very low attrition rate. We believe that this book contributes greatly to knowledge about the life-course development of offending. Cambridge, UK Coral Gables, FL, USA University, MS, USA London, UK March 2023

David P. Farrington Alex R. Piquero Wesley G. Jennings Darrick Jolliffe

v

Acknowledgments

The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) was initially directed from 1961 by Donald J. West. David P. Farrington joined the CSDD in 1969 and took over as Director in 1982. Jeremy Coid co-directed the CSDD during the early 2000s. Darrick Jolliffe joined the CSDD as co-Director in 2020 and will take charge of future data collections, assisted by Richard Turner. For funding the CSDD, we are very grateful to the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, the Rayne Foundation, the Barrow Cadbury Trust, and the Smith-­ Richardson Foundation. For carrying out criminal record searches, we are very grateful to Gwen Gundry in the 1960s and 1970s, Lynda Morley in the 1980s, Sandra Lambert in the 1990s, Debbie Wilson in the 2000s, Owen Thomas in 2011–2012, and Lisa Robinson in 2017. For secretarial assistance, we are very grateful to Maureen Brown. Some parts of Chap. 4 were originally presented in a Home Office report (No. 299; Farrington et al., 2006), and we have permission to reproduce parts of this report in the current book under the UK Open Government Licence, administered by the National Archives. Our greatest debt is to the CSDD males for their continued remarkable level of cooperation over a 40-year period.

Reference Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., Harnett, L., Jolliffe, D., Soteriou, N., Turner, R., & West, D. J. (2006). Criminal careers up to age 50 and life success up to age 48: New findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (Research Study No. 299). Home Office.

vii

Contents

1

 Introduction to Criminal Careers������������������������������������������������������������   1 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   3

2

 The CSDD: Previous Results��������������������������������������������������������������������   7 2.1 Sample������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   7 2.2 Aims of the Study ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   8 2.3 Methods����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   9 2.4 Previous Findings on Offending ��������������������������������������������������������  10 2.5 Childhood Risk Factors����������������������������������������������������������������������  11 2.6 Risk Mechanisms��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  12 2.7 Effects of Life Events ������������������������������������������������������������������������  12 2.8 Overlap Between Poor Health and Offending������������������������������������  13 2.9 Psychopathy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  13 2.10 Validity and Reliability ����������������������������������������������������������������������  14 2.11 Strengths of the CSDD������������������������������������������������������������������������  14 2.12 Limitations of the CSDD��������������������������������������������������������������������  16 2.13 Main Aims of This Book��������������������������������������������������������������������  16 2.14 Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17

3

Official Criminal Careers��������������������������������������������������������������������������  21 3.1 Criminal Record Searches������������������������������������������������������������������  21 3.2 Age and Crime������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  23 3.3 Types of Offenses��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  26 3.4 Continuity in Convictions ������������������������������������������������������������������  26 3.5 Criminal Careers ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  27 3.6 Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  30 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  31

4

Self-Reported Versus Official Offending ������������������������������������������������  33 4.1 Research on Self-Reported Offending������������������������������������������������  33 4.2 Self-Reported Offending in the CSDD ����������������������������������������������  35 ix

x

Contents

4.3 Prevalence of Self-Reported Offenders����������������������������������������������  36 4.4 Continuity in Self-Reported Offending����������������������������������������������  37 4.5 Prevalence of Official Offenders��������������������������������������������������������  38 4.6 Overlap Between Self-Reported and Convicted Offenders����������������  39 4.7 Number of Offenses Committed ��������������������������������������������������������  40 4.8 Ratio of Self-Reported to Official Offenses����������������������������������������  41 4.9 Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  43 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  44 5

 Trajectories of Offending to Age 61���������������������������������������������������������  47 5.1 Trajectory Model Fit ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  48 5.2 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–16 ��������������������������������������������������  49 5.3 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–24 ��������������������������������������������������  49 5.4 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–32 ��������������������������������������������������  51 5.5 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–40 ��������������������������������������������������  51 5.6 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–48 ��������������������������������������������������  52 5.7 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–56 ��������������������������������������������������  53 5.8 Offending Trajectories: Ages 10–61 ��������������������������������������������������  54 5.9 Summarizing the Number and Trends of Offending Trajectories Across Age Ranges ��������������������������������������������������������  55 5.10 Summarizing the Distribution of Offending Trajectories Across Age Ranges ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  55 5.11 How Do Childhood Risk Factors Distinguish Offending Trajectories Across Age Ranges?��������������������������������������������������������  63 5.12 Prediction of Later Offending from Childhood Risk��������������������������  65 5.13 Evaluating the Role of Risk Factors for the Most At-Risk CSDD Males ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  66 5.14 Analysis of Premature Death Distinguishing Trajectories������������������  69 5.15 Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  69 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  70

6

 What Have We Learned from the CSDD in the Last 10 Years?������������  73 6.1 Childhood Risk and Protective Factors����������������������������������������������  73 6.2 Biological Factors ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  75 6.3 Psychopathy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  75 6.4 Intimate Partner Violence��������������������������������������������������������������������  76 6.5 Intergenerational Transmission ����������������������������������������������������������  76 6.6 Health��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  77 6.7 Theory ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  77 6.8 Life Events������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  78 6.9 Costs����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  79 6.10 Conclusions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  79 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  79

Contents

xi

7

Conclusions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  83 7.1 Criminal Offending ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  83 7.2 Self-Reported Offending��������������������������������������������������������������������  84 7.3 Trajectories of Offending��������������������������������������������������������������������  84 7.4 Theoretical Implications ��������������������������������������������������������������������  85 7.5 Policy Implications ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  85 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  86

8

2013–2023 Publications Presenting Results from the CSDD (120)��������  87

Index��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  97

About the Authors

David P. Farrington, O.B.E., is Emeritus Professor of Psychological Criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. He has received the Stockholm Prize in Criminology and the four major awards (Sellin-Glueck, Sutherland, Vollmer, Bloch) of the American Society of Criminology. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Psychological Society, and the American Society of Criminology. Alex R. Piquero is Professor of Sociology and Criminology and Arts and Sciences Distinguished Scholar at the University of Miami. He is currently serving as Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (effective August 2022). He has received several research, teaching, and service awards and is Fellow of both the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Wesley  G.  Jennings is Gillespie Distinguished Scholar, Chair, Professor, and Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Policing and Reform (CEBPR) at the Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies in the School of Applied Sciences and a Faculty Affiliate at the School of Law, University of Mississippi. He is a Member of the American Bar Association and the American Society of Criminology and a Lifetime Member of both the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the Southern Criminal Justice Association. Darrick Jolliffe is Professor of Criminology and former Head of the School of Law and Criminology, University of Greenwich. He is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology and on the Editorial Board of the British Journal of Criminology and Victims and Offenders. He was an academic appointee to the Expert Panel of the Youth Endowment Fund.

xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction to Criminal Careers

Studying patterns of criminal offending can be traced back to the origins of the field of criminology. Scholars in Europe initially sought to examine the patterning of crime with age (Quetelet, 1842), and this theme has been a constant source of description and debate in the field since (Britt, 2019; Sweeten et al., 2013). Many prominent studies have been undertaken on the criminal careers of offenders, beginning with the case study of the Jack-Roller (Shaw, 1930), to the pioneering Philadelphia 1945 Birth Cohort Study (Wolfgang et al., 1972) and its 1958 replication and extension (Tracy et al., 1990), to three longitudinal studies in America that expanded the collection of criminal career information to include self-reported offending data (Thornberry et al., 2004; Thornberry & Krohn, 2000), to the expansive longitudinal study tracking the offending careers of the original Glueck delinquent sample (Laub & Sampson, 2003), to the multi-cohort Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN; Neil et al., 2021), to the dual site Pathways to Desistance Study (Mulvey et al., 2004); and many other longitudinal studies around the world (Blokland et al., 2005; Fergusson et al., 2009; Francis et  al., 2004; Le Blanc & Frechette, 1989; Langevin et  al., 2022; McCuish et  al., 2022; Najman et al., 2022; Payne & Piquero, 2020; Richmond-Rakerd et al., 2019; Tremblay et al., 1995; Wikström et al., 2012); for summaries of major longitudinal studies, see Farrington and Welsh (2007, chapter 2) and Farrington (2021b). Longitudinal research has yielded important descriptive information about the patterning of offending with age, to include its onset, persistence, co-offending, escalation, specialization, duration, and eventual desistance (see reviews in Blumstein et al., 1986; DeLisi & Piquero, 2011; Le Blanc, 2012; MacLeod et al., 2012; Piquero et al., 2003; Soothill et al., 2009). These parameters focus on specific dimensions within the criminal career and are important for both theory and policy. The onset of offending considers the beginning of one’s criminal career while desistance is the end of one’s career. In between these dimensional poles are other aspects of the criminal career including persistence (continued offending), duration (the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023 D. P. Farrington et al., Offending from Childhood to Late Middle Age, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3335-9_1

1

2

1  Introduction to Criminal Careers

length of offending), co-offending (the extent to which offenders offend with others), escalation (the tendency to begin one’s career with minor offenses and then gradually engage in more serious offenses), and specialization (the extent to which offenders restrict their offending to specific offense types such as fraud or classes of offenses such as property crimes). Some theories may or may not explain all of these parameters while some policies may be aimed at influencing one or more of these dimensions. Additionally, research on criminal careers has spurred new inter- and multi-­ disciplinary theoretical frameworks that have focused on the development of criminal behavior and considered important themes about the nature of offending careers—including continuity and change—as well as the life events that may alter criminal careers in an upward or downward direction (Kazemian et al., 2019). Two of the most prominent of these theories are Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy and Sampson and Laub’s (1993) age-graded theory of informal social control. The former argues that the aggregate age-crime curve hides variability in the patterning of crime and the types of individuals who offend. For Moffitt, the aggregate age-crime curve is made up of largely adolescence-limited offenders who begin to offend in early adolescence due to the interaction between biological maturity and the peer social context only to desist by late adolescence (except for a small number of individuals who become ensnared by their offending, such as a prison stint or drug addiction). Due to their biological but not social maturation, adolescence-­limited offenders engage in status-oriented offenses, such as alcohol and drug use, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, life-course-persistent offenders begin to offend very early in the life course and continue to offend over their life course. Unlike their adolescence-limited offender counterparts, the genesis of this type of offending style lies in the interaction between neuropsychological deficits and disadvantaged familial/economic environments ill-equipped to help children. Left unchecked, failure ensues in an array of life domains for life-course-persistent offenders and the prospects for change are low. One other group of individuals, abstainers, do not engage in crime due to their exclusion from adolescent peer groups. Unlike Moffitt’s dual trajectory theory, Sampson and Laub’s theory is rooted in informal social control and the transitions that occur over the life course, especially in adulthood. While not denying the importance of childhood risk and individual propensity, for these theorists most antisocial and criminal behavior ensues from weakened informal social controls connected to families, peers, and the school environment. But the focus of their theory is on the potential change that is exhibited among former delinquents. In fact, experiences in adolescence and adulthood can redirect criminal trajectories in either direction, i.e., more or less offending. In their re-analyses of the Glueck data on former delinquents, Sampson and Laub uncovered much more evidence consistent with a change than a continuity perspective such that the prediction of long-term offending from childhood risk was not very good. In fact, many former offenders exhibited a change in their criminal trajectory as a result of some sort of personal agency and/or the presence of some sort of strong informal social control agent, such as a partner.

References

3

Both empirical and theoretical work on criminal career research has also been very important for policy issues (Visher, 2016), especially considering the knowledge learned about offending patterns and risk factors (Sullivan et al., 2012). All of this work has helped to inform evidence-based research on early childhood prevention programs as well as intervention efforts aimed at thwarting continued criminal careers (see Farrington, 2021a; Farrington & Welsh, 2007). Yet, much more remains to be learned about criminal offending over the life course with respect to official records, self-reports, distinct trajectories of offending, prediction of (chronic) offending from early childhood risk factors, and the relationship between offending—especially chronic offending—and poor health including premature death. This book is designed to provide the most complete descriptive analysis of the criminal careers of over 400 South London males who have been part of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD). In the chapters that follow, we describe in great detail the offending patterns of these men using data from official conviction records and repeated self-report interviews about the nature of their offending, and also perform group-based trajectory analyses in order to identify potential subgroups of offenders who follow unique age-crime pathways throughout the life-course. Our analyses consider the period from childhood into late middle age, from age 10 to 61. Prior to presenting these findings, we provide some background material on the CSDD, including a review of previous study results, and then describe the full range of the official conviction data used, as well as the self-reported material obtained from social interviews with the study men. This book, then, provides one of the most complete, descriptive analyses of the criminal careers of over 400 males who have been followed since childhood and are now entering the sixth decade of their lives.

References Blokland, A.  A., Nagin, D.  S., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction cohort. Criminology, 43(4), 919–954. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals”. National Academy Press. Britt, C.  L. (2019). Age and crime. In D.  P. Farrington, L.  Kazemian, & A.  R. Piquero (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental and life-course criminology (pp.  13–33). Oxford University Press. DeLisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000-2011: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289–301. Farrington, D.  P. (2021a). The developmental evidence base: Prevention. In D.  A. Crighton & G. J. Towl (Eds.), Forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 263–293). Wiley. Farrington, D.  P. (2021b). The developmental evidence base: Psychosocial research. In D. A. Crighton & G. J. Towl (Eds.), Forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 294–329). Wiley. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford University Press.

4

1  Introduction to Criminal Careers

Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2009). Situational and generalised conduct problems and later life outcomes: Evidence from a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1084–1092. Francis, B., Soothill, K., & Ackerly, E. (2004). Multiple cohort data, delinquent generations, and criminal careers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 103–126. Kazemian, L., Farrington, D. P., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Developmental and life-course criminology. In D. P. Farrington, L. Kazemian, & A. R. Piquero (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental and life-course criminology (pp. 3–10). Oxford University Press. Langevin, S., Caspi, A., Barnes, J. C., Brennan, G., Poulton, R., Purdy, S. C., et al. (2022). Life-­ course persistent antisocial behavior and accelerated biological aging in a longitudinal birth cohort. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14402. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press. Le Blanc, M. (2012). Twenty-five years of developmental criminology: What we know, what we need to know. In R. Loeber & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The future of criminology (pp. 124–133). Oxford University Press. Le Blanc, M., & Frechette, M. (1989). Male criminal activity from childhood through youth: Multilevel and developmental perspectives. Springer. MacLeod, J. F., Grove, P. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Explaining criminal careers: Implications for justice policy. Oxford University Press. McCuish, E. C., Lussier, P., & Corrado, R. (2022). The life-course of serious and violent youth grown up: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Routledge. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., et al. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 213–236. Najman, J. M., Clavarino, A. M., McGee, T. R., Middeldorp, C. M., Williams, G. M., & Scott, J. G. (2022). Do adversities experienced over the early life course predict mental illness and substance use behaviour in adulthood: A birth cohort study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 155, 542–549. Neil, R., Sampson, R. J., & Nagin, D. S. (2021). Social change and cohort differences in group-­ based arrest trajectories over the last quarter-century. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 118(31), e2107020118. Payne, J. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). Developmental criminology and the crime decline: A comparative analysis of the criminal careers of two New South Wales Birth Cohorts. Cambridge University Press. Piquero, A.  R., Farrington, D.  P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (Vol. 30, pp. 359–506). University of Chicago Press. Quetelet, A. J. (1842). Research on the propensity for crime at different ages. Anderson. Richmond-Rakerd, L. S., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Baldwin, J. R., Danese, A., Houts, R. M., et al. (2019). Adolescents who self-harm and commit violent crime: Testing early-life predictors of dual harm in a longitudinal cohort study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 176(3), 186–195. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Shaw, C. R. (1930). The jack-roller: A delinquent boy’s own story. University of Chicago Press. Soothill, K., Fitzpatrick, C., & Francis, B. (2009). Understanding criminal careers. Willan. Sullivan, C. J., Piquero, A. R., & Cullen, F. T. (2012). Life before, but better: The lessons of developmental, life-course criminology for contemporary juvenile justice. Victims and Offenders, 7, 450–471. Sweeten, G., Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 921–938.

References

5

Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 33–84). US National Institute of Justice. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (2004). The causes and correlates studies: Findings and policy implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 3–19. Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M. E., & Figlio, R. M. (1990). Delinquency in two birth cohorts. Plenum. Tremblay, R. E., Pagani-Kurtz, L., Masse, L. C., Vitaro, F., & Pihl, R. O. (1995). A bimodal preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 560–568. Visher, C. A. (2016). Unintended consequences: Policy implications of the NAS report on criminal careers and career criminals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 306–320. Wikström, P. H., Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K., & Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking rules: The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press.

Chapter 2

The CSDD: Previous Results

The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) represents one of the longest and most comprehensive prospective longitudinal studies in the world focusing on offending, risk factors, and life events. This chapter based on the corresponding chapter in the previous edition (Farrington et al., 2013) summarizes key results up to 2012, with regard to family criminality, the relationship between employment and crime, risk factors associated with offending, the association between offending and adverse physical health outcomes, and psychopathy. This chapter reviews these research findings in detail and concludes with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the CSDD. Key results published from 2013 to 2023 are described in Chap. 6.

2.1 Sample The CSDD is a prospective longitudinal survey of the development of offending and antisocial behavior among 411 males. At the time they were first contacted in 1961–1962, these males were all living in a working-class inner-city area of South London. The vast majority of the sample was chosen by taking all the boys who were then aged 8–9 and were listed on the registers of six state primary schools within a one-mile radius of a research office that had been established. Hence, the most common year of birth of these males was 1953. In addition to 399 boys from these six schools, 12 boys from a local school for special needs children were included in the sample, in order to make it more representative of the population of boys living in the area. Therefore, the boys were not a probability sample drawn from a population, but rather a complete population of boys of that age in that area at that time.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023 D. P. Farrington et al., Offending from Childhood to Late Middle Age, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3335-9_2

7

8

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

In nearly all cases (94%), their family breadwinner in 1961–1962 (usually the father) had a working-class occupation (skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled manual worker). Most of the boys (357, or 87%) were White and of British origin, since both their parents were born and brought up in England, Scotland, or Wales. Of the remainder, 14 had at least one parent from the North or South of Ireland, 12 had at least one parent of West Indian or African origin, 12 had at least one parent from Cyprus, and 16 boys had at least one parent from another country (Australia, France, Germany, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden). The majority of the males were living in conventional two-parent families with both a father and a mother figure; at age 8, only 6% of the males had no operative father and only 1% had no operative mother. This was, therefore, overwhelmingly a traditional White, urban, working-class sample of British origin. The major results of the CSDD have been described in six books (Farrington et al., 2013; Piquero et al., 2007; West, 1969, 1982; West & Farrington, 1973, 1977) and in nine summary articles (Farrington, 1995, 2003, 2019, 2021a; Farrington et al., 2009, 2021; Farrington & Jolliffe, 2022; Farrington & West, 1981, 1990). A complete list of the approximately 200 publications (up to 2012) from the CSDD was included in Chap. 7 of the 2013 book. Chapter 8 of this book lists CSDD publications from 2013 to 2023.

2.2 Aims of the Study The original aims of the CSDD were to describe the development of delinquent and criminal behavior in inner-city males, to investigate how far it could be predicted in advance, and to explain why juvenile delinquency began, why it did or did not continue into adult crime, and why adult crime often ended as men reached their 20s. The main focus was to study continuity or discontinuity in offending behavior and the effects of life events on delinquent development. The CSDD was not designed to test any one particular theory of delinquency but to test many different hypotheses about the causes and correlates of offending and to establish the relative importance of different predictors of antisocial behavior. Nevertheless, a theory has been proposed to explain these results (see Farrington, 1992, 2005, 2020c). One reason for casting a wide net at the start and measuring many different variables was the belief that interests and perspectives in criminological theory changed over time and that it was important to try to measure as many variables as possible in which future researchers might be interested. Another reason for measuring a wide range of variables was the fact that long-term longitudinal surveys were very uncommon and that the value of the CSDD would be enhanced if it yielded information of use not only to delinquency researchers but also to those interested in alcohol and drug use, educational difficulties, poverty and poor housing, unemployment, sexual behavior, aggression, other social problems, medical and psychiatric problems, and human development generally.

2.3 Methods

9

2.3 Methods The CSDD males were interviewed and tested in their schools when they were aged about 8, 10, and 14, by male or female psychologists. They were interviewed in a research office at about 16, 18, and 21, and in their homes at about 25, 32, and 48, by young social science graduates. At all ages except 21 and 25, the aim was to interview the whole sample, and it was always possible to trace and interview a high proportion: 389 out of 410 still alive at age 18 (95%), 378 out of 403 still alive at age 32 (94%), and 365 out of 394 still alive at age 48 (93%). Farrington et al. (1990) have described the methods of tracing and securing cooperation that achieved this remarkably high retention rate over a 40-year period. Because of inadequate funding, only about half of the males were interviewed at age 21 and about a quarter at age 25. The tests in schools measured individual characteristics such as intelligence, attainment, personality, and psychomotor impulsivity, while information was collected in the interviews about such topics as living circumstances, employment histories, relationships with females, leisure activities, such as drinking and fighting, and self-reported offending. In addition to interviews and tests with the males, interviews with their parents were carried out by female social workers who visited their homes. These took place about once a year from when the boy was about 8 until he was aged 14–15 and was in his last year of compulsory education. The primary informant was the mother, although many fathers were also seen. The parents provided details about such matters as family income, family size, their employment histories, their child-rearing practices (including attitudes, discipline, and parental disharmony), their degree of supervision of the boy, and his temporary or permanent separations from them. Also, the boys’ teachers completed questionnaires when the boys were aged about 8, 10, 12, and 14. These furnished data about their troublesome and aggressive school behavior, their poor concentration or restlessness, their school attainments, and their truancy. Ratings were also obtained from the boys’ peers when they were in the primary schools at ages 8 and 10, about such topics as their daring, dishonesty, troublesomeness, and popularity. Interviews were also carried out with the men’s female partners when the men were age 48. At this age, 289 men were living with female partners, and 234 partners (81%) were interviewed. Also, all male and female biological children of the men were targeted for interview at the minimum age of 18. Of the 653 eligible Generation 3 (G3) children, 551 were interviewed (84%) at the average age of 25. Most were interviewed between ages 23 and 27. However, this book focuses on the CSDD males and does not attempt to analyze their female partners or children.

10

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

2.4 Previous Findings on Offending The CSDD has advanced knowledge particularly about the development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood to adulthood, about childhood risk factors for later offending and antisocial behavior, and about the effects of life events on the course of development of offending. These are the three main aims of developmental criminology (Farrington, 2002). Since this book focuses on the development of offending over time, previous results obtained on this topic are not reviewed in this chapter (see Chap. 3). The CSDD found that offending tends to be concentrated in families. While 40% of CSDD males were convicted up to age 40 in 1993, this was also true of 28% of their fathers, 13% of their mothers, 43% of their brothers, 12% of their sisters, and 9% of their wives. The fact that the percentage of brothers convicted was similar to the percentage of CSDD males convicted suggests that the repeated interviews with the males had no effect on their likelihood of offending. There were on average 1.5 convicted persons out of 5.5 persons per family (or about 600 convicted persons out of 2200 searched). While 64% of families contained at least one convicted person, only 6% of families accounted for half of all the convictions of all family members (Farrington et al., 1996). Later, Besemer and Farrington (2012) studied the relationship between offending trajectories of parents and children, and there has been a more recent study of the concentration of offending in families (Farrington & Crago, 2016). The conviction careers of fathers and mothers (up to the average age of 70) were very different from those of the CSDD males. Contrary to the view that offending is heavily concentrated in the teenage years, the average age of conviction was 30 for fathers and 35 for mothers. Contrary to the view that most people who are going to offend begin before age 20, the average age of onset was 27 for fathers and 33 for mothers. One-quarter of convicted fathers did not start offending until after age 35, and one-quarter of convicted mothers did not start offending until after age 42 (Farrington et al., 1998). It must, however, be borne in mind that fathers reached the peak conviction ages of 14–20 in 1937–1943 on average, when many of them would have been away in World War II. Also, it is possible that some early convictions of fathers and mothers could have been deleted from the Criminal Record Office before our first search in 1964. A systematic removal of files, termed “weeding,” began in 1958. For example, files of offenders aged between 40 and 70 were weeded if they had not come to the notice of the police for at least 20 years (Farrington et al., 1998, p. 90). Contrary to the view that most offenders “grow out” of crime in their 20s, the average age of desistance was 36 for convicted fathers and 38 for convicted mothers. One-quarter of convicted fathers did not stop offending until after age 45, and one-quarter of convicted mothers did not stop offending until after age 48. Contrary to the view that criminal careers are relatively short, their average duration (excluding one-time offenders) was 16 years for fathers and 15 years for mothers (Farrington et al., 1998). The absence of fathers in World War II means that their career duration

2.5  Childhood Risk Factors

11

may have been under-estimated. When complete criminal careers are studied, officially recorded offending seems far more persistent than previously thought. However, there is no self-reported offending data from fathers or mothers.

2.5 Childhood Risk Factors Before anyone was convicted at ages 8–10, the future delinquents differed from the non-delinquents in many respects, and similar results were obtained whether delinquency was based on convictions or self-reports (West & Farrington, 1973). The key risk factors at ages 8–10 fell into six major categories (Farrington, 1990), each of which independently predicted later offending: (1) disruptive child behavior (troublesomeness or dishonesty); (2) criminality in the family (a convicted parent, a delinquent sibling); (3) low intelligence or low school attainment; (4) poor child-­ rearing (poor discipline, poor supervision, or separation of a child from a parent); (5) impulsiveness (daring or risk-taking, restlessness, or poor concentration); and (6) economic deprivation (low income, poor housing, large family size). There have been many later studies of risk factors (see e.g., Farrington, 2020a, b). To give some idea of the extent to which convictions might be predictable in advance, a combined measure of vulnerability was developed at age 8–10, based on low family income, large family size (five or more children), a convicted parent, poor child-rearing, and low non-verbal IQ (90 or less). Of the 63 boys with three or more of these adverse factors, 46 (73%) were convicted up to age 32. The unconvicted boys tended to have few or no friends at age 8, suggesting that social isolation might be a protective factor against offending (Farrington et al., 1988). However, social isolation predicted adult onset offending (Zara & Farrington, 2009, 2010). Later research focused on factors that might protect boys in risk categories from becoming offenders (Farrington & Ttofi, 2011). Additional investigation by Piquero et al. (2007) found that important individual and environmental risk factors not only distinguished between nonoffenders and offenders up to age 40, but also between membership in five trajectory groups identified in accumulated conviction histories to age 40. Another study linking teacher-­ reported aggression in early adolescence to the age 40 conviction trajectories revealed that there was a strong degree of continuity in aggression/antisocial behavior, as identified by teachers, and high rate chronic offending patterns, as measured in the age 40 conviction trajectories—and this was especially the case among the most highly aggressive children (Piquero et al., 2012d).

12

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

2.6 Risk Mechanisms While a great deal is known about key risk factors for offending, less is known about intervening causal processes. As an example of an attempt to investigate mechanisms linking risk factors and antisocial behavior, we tested different explanations of the relationship between disrupted families and delinquency (Juby & Farrington, 2001). Trauma theories suggest that the loss of a parent has a damaging effect on a child, most commonly because of the effect on attachment to the parent. Life-course theories focus on separation as a sequence of stressful experiences and on the effects of multiple stressors such as parental conflict, parental loss, reduced economic circumstances, changes in parent figures, and poor child-rearing methods. Selection theories argue that disrupted families produce delinquent children because of pre-­ existing differences from other families in risk factors such as parental conflict, criminal or antisocial parents, low family income, or poor child-rearing methods. It was concluded that the results favored life-course theories rather than trauma or selection theories. While boys from broken homes (permanently disrupted families) were more delinquent than boys from intact homes, they were not more delinquent than boys from intact high conflict families. Interestingly, this result was replicated in Switzerland (Haas et al., 2004). Overall, the most important factor was the post-disruption trajectory. Boys who remained with their mother after the separation had the same delinquency rate as boys from intact low conflict families. Boys who remained with their father, with relatives, or with others (e.g., foster parents) had high delinquency rates. The results were similar whether convictions or self-­ reported delinquency were studied.

2.7 Effects of Life Events The effects of numerous life events on the course of development of offending have been investigated. In particular, going to a high delinquency-rate school at age 11 did not seem to amplify the risk of offending, since badly behaved boys tended to go to the high delinquency-rate schools (Farrington, 1972). However, getting convicted did lead to an increase in offending, according to the boys’ self-reports (Farrington, 1977). Unemployment also caused an increase in offending, but only for crimes leading to financial gain, such as theft, burglary, robbery, and fraud. There was no effect of unemployment on other offenses, such as violence, vandalism, or drug use, suggesting that the link between unemployment and offending was mediated by lack of money rather than boredom (Farrington et al., 1986). It is often believed that marriage, especially a good-quality marriage (Laub et al., 1998), is one of the most effective antidotes for male offending, and Farrington and West (1995) did indeed find that getting married led to a decrease in offending compared with staying single. Also, later separation from a wife led to an increase in offending compared with staying married. More detailed analyses of the effects of

2.9 Psychopathy

13

marriage on offending using propensity score matching confirmed these results (Theobald & Farrington, 2009, 2011). Another protective life event was moving out of London, which led to a decrease in offending (Osborn, 1980). This was probably because of the effect of the move in breaking up delinquent peer groups.

2.8 Overlap Between Poor Health and Offending There has been a surge in interest in the overlap between criminal offending and poor health outcomes. Because the CSDD was fortunate to have collected a wide range of life- and health-related outcomes, this potential overlap has received important attention. For example, Piquero et al. (2010b) demonstrated that accumulated offending histories up to age 40 were related to job classifications at age 48, finding that high-rate chronic offenders were the least likely to hold prestigious white-collar jobs, while non-offenders were the most likely to be in more prestigious white-collar occupations. In another study, Piquero et al. (2010a) examined whether the variation in offending trajectories up to age 40 predicted a measure of life success at age 48, including outcomes such as employment and mental health. Their analyses showed that high-rate chronic offenders exhibited more life failure than other less chronic offenders who were leading more successful lives. With respect to health-related injuries, Shepherd et al. (2009) found that death and disability by age 48 was predicted by childhood and parental predictors of offending, self-reported delinquency at age 32, and the conviction history. Piquero et al. (2011) made additional use of the distinct age 40 offending trajectories, finding that, by age 48, the high rate chronic offender trajectory had the highest risk of being registered disabled and being hospitalized. Follow-up research by Piquero et  al. (2012b) that examined the relationship between offending and early death among the CSDD males indicated that high rate chronic offenders had the highest risk of death, a relationship that remained even after consideration of childhood individual and environmental risk factors, as well as involvement in behaviors that were related to both offending and adverse health outcomes, such as binge drinking and excessive smoking.

2.9 Psychopathy Psychopathy was measured at age 48 using the PCL:SV. Farrington (2006a) showed that total psychopathy scores were nonlinearly related to convictions. For example, 97% of those scoring 10 of more were convicted up to age 48. Farrington (2006a) also found that the strongest childhood predictors of high psychopathy scores were an uninvolved father, physical neglect of the boy, a convicted father, low family income, a convicted mother, and a disrupted family. Farrington (2006a) also reported

14

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

childhood predictors of the two (affective and antisocial) factors, while Farrington (2007) reported childhood predictors of the four facets. Piquero et al. (2012a) investigated offending trajectories up to age 40 in relation to psychopathy scores (total, factors, and facets). They found that low-rate chronics, high adolescence peak offenders, and high-rate chronics tended to have high psychopathy scores. Following Piquero et al. (2007), they also investigated an individual risk score in childhood (based on factors such as low intelligence, high daring, and high impulsiveness) and an environmental risk score (based on factors such as a convicted parent, low family income, and a disrupted family). Both risk scores predicted psychopathy, but only the environmental risk score predicted psychopathy after controlling for offending trajectories.

2.10 Validity and Reliability Numerous tests of validity were carried out on the data collected between ages 8 and 32, in most cases based on comparisons between interview data and external information from records. For example, self-reports of convictions were compared with criminal records of convictions, and the mother’s report of the boy’s birth weight was compared with hospital records. It was shown that self-reported delinquency had predictive validity: among unconvicted males, those who reported a particular type of offense had an increased probability of being convicted for it later (Farrington, 1989). As another example, more than twice as many of those who said that they had sexual intercourse without using contraceptives at age 18 subsequently conceived a child outside marriage compared with the remainder (Farrington & West, 1995). Reliability checks were also made. For example, information about the same topic (e.g., school leaving age) from different interviews was compared, as was information about the same topic from different parts of the same interview. Generally, the men were randomly allocated between our two or three interviewers in each data collection wave in order to investigate interviewer effects, but fortunately these were rarely found (see e.g., West & Farrington, 1977, pp. 172–175). All of these validity and reliability checks suggested that in the vast majority of cases, the CSDD males were genuinely trying to tell the truth.

2.11 Strengths of the CSDD The CSDD has a unique combination of features: (a) Nine personal face-to-face interviews with the males have been completed over a period of 40 years, from age 8 to age 48; (b) the main focus of interest is on offending, which has now been studied from age 10 to age 61; (c) the sample size of about 400 is large enough for many statistical analyses but small enough to permit detailed case histories of the boys

2.11  Strengths of the CSDD

15

and their families; (d) there has been a very low attrition rate, so that the information is very complete; (e) information has been obtained from multiple sources: the males, their parents, teachers, peers, and official records; and (f) information has been obtained about a wide variety of theoretical constructs, including intelligence, impulsiveness, socio-economic status, parental child-rearing methods, peer delinquency, school behavior, employment success, marital stability, and medical and psychiatric problems. No other survey in the world has yet followed up hundreds of children in a community sample from childhood to after age 60, focusing on offending, and including as many as nine personal interviews spanning a 40 year period from childhood to the late 40s. Farrington (2021b) reviewed 20 major long-lasting prospective longitudinal surveys of offending in community samples of at least several hundreds. One of the most comparable surveys to the CSDD is the follow-up of about 700 children born on Kauai (Hawaii) in 1955 by Werner and Smith (2001), which had extensive perinatal data and four follow-up contacts to age 40. However, only 70% of the sample was surveyed at age 40. In the famous follow-up of the Glueck delinquents by Laub and Sampson (2003), only 52 men were interviewed at age 70 out of a possible 230 who were still alive; no others were interviewed after age 32. Welsh et  al. (2019) followed up the males in the famous Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study in death records up to their 80s, but they were only followed up to age 48 in interviews, mail questionnaires, and criminal records (McCord, 1991). Perhaps the most comparable survey to the CSDD was carried out by LeBlanc (2020, 2021) in Montreal, Canada. He followed up over 400 adolescents and over 400 delinquents, first seen at an average age of 15, to age 61 in criminal records. Also, there were four interviews with the adolescent sample up to age 40 and five interviews with the delinquent sample up to age 41. Other somewhat comparable long-term surveys of offending have been conducted by Magnusson in Sweden (Bergman & Andershed, 2009), Pulkkinen in Finland (Pulkkinen et al., 2020), and Huesmann in New  York State (Huesmann et  al., 2009). Magnusson followed up over 1000 children, first seen at age 10, to an average age of 44 using questionnaire and record data. Pulkkinen followed up nearly 400 children, first seen at age 8, up to age 50, using postal questionnaires and record data. Huesmann followed up over 800 children from age 8 to age 48 using interviews and records. While all these surveys are extremely important, none had more than five personal interviews with the participants, and their attrition rates were much higher than in the CSDD. For example, in the Pulkkinen study, questionnaires were completed at age 42 by 67% of those who were still alive, and in the Huesmann study, 61% of those still alive were interviewed at age 48. In sum, the CSDD is unparalleled in its large number of personal interviews and its very low attrition rate over a 40-year period.

16

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

2.12 Limitations of the CSDD The CSDD provides information about the development of offending and antisocial behavior in an inner-city, working-class British White male sample born about 1953. To what extent similar results would be obtained with females, Black or Asian children, suburban or rural children, middle or upper class children, children born more recently, or children brought up in other countries are interesting empirical questions. Generally, results obtained in the CSDD are similar to those obtained with comparable male samples from the United Kingdom (Farrington & Maughan, 1999), Sweden (Farrington & Wikström, 1994), Finland (Pulkkinen, 1988), and from other Western industrialized countries (Farrington, 2006b). The CSDD has the usual methodological problems of prospective longitudinal surveys. While the problem of attrition was largely overcome, testing effects (the effects on the males of repeated interviews) are not clear. However, as mentioned, the percentage of brothers (who were never contacted) who were convicted up to age 40 was very similar to the percentage of CSDD males who were convicted, suggesting that the repeated interviews had little effect on convictions at least. The single cohort design made it difficult to distinguish between aging and period effects; for example, between ages 14 and 18, the percentage of males who had taken drugs increased from less than 1% to 31%, but this was probably a function of the time period (from 1967 to 1971). Farrington (1979) provided a review of the advantages and problems of longitudinal surveys of offending. The sample size was too small to study rare events, such as sex offenders or low birth weight, effectively. Piquero et  al. (2012c) carried out a major study of sex offending and sex recidivism, but both were extremely rare in the CSDD. Because of intermittent funding, the interviews were too infrequent to establish the exact or relative timing of many life events, and hence to establish developmental sequences between presumed causes and observed effects. Inevitably, some of the initial measures, based on interviews by psychiatric social workers, now appear rather old-­ fashioned, and great efforts had to be made to achieve consistent and valid measures. Also, asking the males to recall over a 5-year period was not ideal but was necessary because of the infrequency of the interviews.

2.13 Main Aims of This Book The main aims of the long-term follow-up study described in this book are to investigate, for a sample of males who were living in a deprived inner-city area at age 8, the development of offending from age 10 to age 61. The two general topics addressed are as follows: 1. What are the key features of official criminal careers? (Chaps. 3 and 5). The latest conviction data was amalgamated with earlier data to establish the ages of the first and last offenses, the duration of criminal careers, the numbers

References

17

and types of offenses committed at different ages, continuity in offending over time, the relation between ages of onset and the frequency and duration of offending, and the extent to which the conviction histories of the CSDD men are similar to one another or whether there are unique trajectories of offending that combine to form distinct age-crime pathways over the life-course. 2. What is the relationship between self-reported and official offending at different ages? (Chap. 4). The social interview at age 48 provided new self-report data that was linked up with earlier self-report data to extend knowledge about the time course of criminal careers from age 10 to age 48 (uniquely including contemporaneous self-report data at several different ages on the same men). It is also possible to compare self-reported and official offending to establish the number of self-­ reported offenses per conviction, which is an important but rarely undertaken analysis in the criminal career literature because of data constraints. It is worth noting that the face-to-face social interview given at age 48 was closely modelled on the previous social interview given at age 32 and included the same self-reported offending questions asked from age 18 onward. The interview was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychiatry, London University.

2.14 Summary The CSDD has advanced knowledge about the development of offending, risk factors, and the effects of life events. The CSDD is unique especially in (a) following up hundreds of children in a community sample for over 50 years, (b) focusing on offending, (c) including more than five personal interviews spanning the period from childhood to the late 40s, and (d) having a very low attrition rate. This chapter has briefly reviewed only a few key results up to 2012. Chapter 6 presents more recent findings.

References Bergman, L. R., & Andershed, A.-K. (2009). Predictors and outcomes of persistent or age-limited registered criminal behavior: A 30-year longitudinal study of a Swedish urban population. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 164–178. Besemer, S., & Farrington, D.  P. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour: Conviction trajectories of fathers and their children. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 120–141. Farrington, D. P. (1972). Delinquency begins at home. New Society, 21, 495–497. Farrington, D.  P. (1977). The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 112–125.

18

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

Farrington, D. P. (1979). Longitudinal research on crime and delinquency. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 1, pp. 289–348). University of Chicago Press. Farrington, D.  P. (1989). Self-reported and official offending from adolescence to adulthood. In M.  W. Klein (Ed.), Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 399–423). Kluwer. Farrington, D. P. (1990). Implications of criminal career research for the prevention of offending. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 93–113. Farrington, D.  P. (1992). Explaining the beginning, progress and ending of antisocial behavior from birth to adulthood. In J.  McCord (Ed.), Facts, frameworks and forecasts: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 3, pp. 253–286). Transaction. Farrington, D.  P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929–964. Farrington, D. P. (2002). Developmental criminology and risk-focussed prevention. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (3rd ed., pp. 657–701). Oxford University Press. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Key results from the first 40 years of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. In T.  P. Thornberry & M.  D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 137–183). Kluwer/Plenum. Farrington, D.  P. (2005). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory. In D.  P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 73–92). Transaction. Farrington, D. P. (2006a). Family background and psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 229–250). Guilford Press. Farrington, D.  P. (2006b). Origins of violent behaviour over the life span. In D.  J. Flannery, A.  T. Vaszonyi, & I.  Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 19–48). Cambridge University Press. Farrington, D.  P. (2007). Social origins of psychopathy. In A.  R. Felthous & H.  Sass (Eds.), International handbook on psychopathic disorders and the law, Vol. 1: Diagnosis and treatment (pp. 319–334). Wiley. Farrington, D.  P. (2019). The Cambridge study in delinquent development. In D.  Eaves, C. D. Webster, Q. Haque, & J. Eaves-Thalken (Eds.), Risk rules: A practical guide to structured professional judgment and violence prevention (pp. 225–233). Pavilion Publishing. Farrington, D. P. (2020a). Childhood risk factors for criminal career duration: Comparisons with prevalence, onset, frequency and recidivism. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30, 159–171. Farrington, D. P. (2020b). Interactions between resting heart rate and childhood risk factors in predicting convictions and antisocial personality scores. Crime and Delinquency, 66, 1369–1391. Farrington, D. P. (2020c). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory: Past, present and future. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 6, 172–187. Farrington, D. P. (2021a). New findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. In J. C. Barnes & D. R. Forde (Eds.), The encyclopedia of research methods in criminology and criminal justice (Vol. 1, pp. 96–103). Wiley. Farrington, D.  P. (2021b). The developmental evidence base: Psychosocial research. In D. A. Crighton & G. J. Towl (Eds.), Forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 294–329). Wiley. Farrington, D.  P., & Crago, R.  V. (2016). The concentration of convictions in two generations of families. In A. Kapardis & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The psychology of crime, policing and courts (pp. 7–23). Routledge. Farrington, D.  P., & Jolliffe, D. (2022). Latest results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development (CSDD). In R. Andersson & P. Wahlgren (Eds.), A life in criminology: Festschrift to Jerzy Sarnecki (pp. 45–55). Justus Forlag. Farrington, D.  P., & Maughan, B. (1999). Criminal careers of two London cohorts. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9, 91–106.

References

19

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2011). Protective and promotive factors in the development of offending. In T. Bleisener, A. Beelman & M. Stemmler (Eds.), Antisocial behavior and crime: Contributions of developmental and evaluation research to prevention and intervention. Hogmefe. Farrington, D.  P., & West, D.  J. (1981). The Cambridge study in delinquent development. In S.  A. Mednick & A.  E. Baert (Eds.), Prospective longitudinal research: An empirical basis for the primary prevention of psychosocial disorders (pp. 137–145). Oxford University Press. Farrington, D.  P., & West, D.  J. (1990). The Cambridge study in delinquent development: A long-term follow-up of 411 London males. In H-. J. Kerner, & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Kriminalitat: Personlichkeit, Lebensgeschichte und Verhalten (Criminality: Personality, behaviour and life history) (pp. 115–138). Springer. Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1995). Effects of marriage, separation and children on offending by adult males. In J. Hagan (Ed.), Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle, Vol. 4: Delinquency and disrepute in the life course (pp. 249–281). JAI Press. Farrington, D. P., & Wikström, P.-O. H. (1994). Criminal careers in London and Stockholm: A cross-national comparative study. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H.-J. Kerner (Eds.), Cross-national longitudinal research on human development and criminal behavior (pp. 65–89). Kluwer. Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St Ledger, R. J., & West, D. J. (1986). Unemployment, school leaving and crime. British Journal of Criminology, 26, 335–356. Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St Ledger, R. J., & West, D. J. (1988). Are there any successful men from criminogenic backgrounds? Psychiatry, 51, 116–130. Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St Ledger, R. J., & West, D. J. (1990). Minimizing attrition in longitudinal research: Methods of tracing and securing cooperation in a 24-year follow-up study. In D. Magnusson & L. Bergman (Eds.), Data quality in longitudinal research (pp. 122–147). Cambridge University Press. Farrington, D. P., Barnes, G. C., & Lambert, S. (1996). The concentration of offending in families. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 47–63. Farrington, D. P., Lambert, S., & West, D. J. (1998). Criminal careers of two generations of family members in the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 85–106. Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & West, D. J. (2009). The development of offending from age 8 to age 50: Recent results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Monatsschrift fur Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform (Journal of Criminology and Penal Reform), 92, 160–173. Farrington, D.  P., Piquero, A.  R., & Jennings, W.  G. (2013). Offending from childhood to late middle age: Recent results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Springer. Farrington, D.  P., Jolliffe, D., & Coid, J.  W. (2021). Cohort profile: The Cambridge study in delinquent development (CSDD). Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7, 278–291. Haas, H., Farrington, D. P., Killias, M., & Sattar, G. (2004). The impact of different family configurations on delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 520–532. Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F., & Boxer, P. (2009). Continuity of aggression from childhood to early adulthood as a predictor of life outcomes: Implications for the adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent models. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 136–149. Juby, H., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Disentangling the link between disrupted families and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 22–40. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238. Le Blanc, M. (2020). On the future of the individual longitudinal age-crime curve. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30, 183–195. Le Blanc, M. (2021). The development of antisocial behaviour and crime. Springer.

20

2  The CSDD: Previous Results

McCord, J. (1991). Family relationships, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. Criminology, 29, 397–417. Osborn, S. G. (1980). Moving home, leaving London and delinquent trends. British Journal of Criminology, 20, 54–61. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: New analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge University Press. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Nagin, D. S., & Moffitt, T. E. (2010a). Trajectories of offending and their relation to life failure in late middle age: Findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 151–173. Piquero, N.  L., Piquero, A.  R., & Farrington, D.  P. (2010b). Criminal offender trajectories and (white-collar) occupational prestige. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 134–143. Piquero, A. R., Shepherd, J. P., Shepherd, I., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Impact of offending trajectories on health: Disability, hospitalization and death in middle-aged men in the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 189–201. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Fontaine, N. M., Vincent, G., Coid, J. W., & Ullrich, S. (2012a). Childhood risk, offending trajectories, and psychopathy at age 48 years (in the Cambridge study in delinquent development). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 577–598. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Shepherd, J. P., & Auty, K. (2012b). Offending and early deaths in the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Justice Quarterly, 31, 445–472. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., & Craig, J. (2012c). Sex offenders and sex offending in the Cambridge study in delinquent development: Prevalence, frequency, specialization, recidivism and (dis)continuity over the life-course. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 412–426. Piquero, A. R., Carriaga, M. L., Diamond, B., Kazemian, L. & Farrington, D. P. (2012d). Stability in aggression revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 365–372. Pulkkinen, L. (1988). Delinquent development: Theoretical and empirical considerations. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Studies of psychosocial risk (pp. 184–199). Cambridge University Press. Pulkkinen, L., Fadjukoff, P., & Pitkanen, T. (2020). Persistent offenders and adolescence-limited offenders: Differences in life-courses. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30, 196–209. Shepherd, J. P., Shepherd, I., Newcombe, R. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Impact of antisocial lifestyle on health: Chronic disability and death by middle age. Journal of Public Health, 31, 506–511. Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Effects of getting married on offending: Results from a prospective longitudinal survey of males. European Journal of Criminology, 6, 496–516. Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Why do the crime-reducing effects of marriage vary with age? British Journal of Criminology, 51, 136–158. Welsh, B. C., Zane, S. N., Zimmerman, G. M., & Yohros, A. (2019). Association of a crime prevention program for boys with mortality 72 years after the intervention: Follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA Network Open, 2(3), e190782. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife. Cornell University Press. West, D. J. (1969). Present conduct and future delinquency. Heinemann. West, D. J. (1982). Delinquency: Its roots, careers and prospects. Heinemann. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? Heinemann. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. Heinemann. Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Childhood and adolescent predictors of late onset criminal careers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 287–300. Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). A longitudinal analysis of early risk factors for adult onset offending: What predicts a delayed criminal career? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20, 257–273.

Chapter 3

Official Criminal Careers

3.1  Criminal Record Searches Up to 1994, searches were carried out in the central Criminal Record Office or National Identification Service (CRO/NIS) at Scotland Yard in London to try to locate findings of guilt of the males and their relatives. The minimum age of criminal responsibility in England is 10. The Criminal Record Office contained records of all relatively serious offenses committed in Great Britain or Ireland and also acted as a repository for records of minor juvenile offenses committed in London. In the case of 18 males who had emigrated outside Great Britain and Ireland by age 32, applications were made to search their criminal records in the eight countries where they had settled, and searches were actually carried out in five countries. Only two males were counted as not at risk of conviction, because they emigrated permanently before age 10 and were not searched abroad. Three offenses that actually occurred under age 10 were counted as occurring at age 10. The last search of conviction records in the CRO/NIS took place in the summer of 1994, when most of the males were aged 41. Convictions were counted for offenses committed up to the end of 1993, when most of the males were aged 40. Between ages 10 and 16 inclusive (the years of juvenile delinquency in England at that time), 85 males (21%) were convicted. Altogether, up to age 40, 164 males were convicted (Farrington et al., 1998). In this book, the recorded age of offending is the age at which an offense was committed, not the age on conviction. There can be delays of several months or even more than a year between offenses and convictions, making conviction ages different from offending ages. In investigating criminal careers, it is vital to study when offenses were committed. Offenses are defined as acts leading to convictions, and only offenses committed on different days were counted. Where two or more offenses were committed on the same day, only the most serious one was counted. This rule was adopted so that each separate incident could only yield one offense; if all offenses had been counted, the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023 D. P. Farrington et al., Offending from Childhood to Late Middle Age, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3335-9_3

21

22

3  Official Criminal Careers

number of offenses would have been greater than the number of criminal incidents, and therefore the number of criminal incidents would have been overestimated. The most serious offense was defined as the one which received the most severe sentence or—where sentences were equal—the one with the longest maximum sentence. Most court appearances arose from only one offending day; the 760 recorded offenses up to age 40 corresponded to 686 separate occasions of conviction. Offenses “taken into consideration” were not counted. Between 1964 and 1979, paper records were consulted in the CRO/NIS at Scotland Yard. In 1979, the records were transferred on to microfiche, and microfiche records were then consulted in the CRO/NIS at Scotland Yard until 1994. However, from 1995, the microfiche collection was discontinued, and all convictions were recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC). There was only limited copying of old records to the PNC, generally when a person received a new conviction. Further searches of criminal records of the CSDD males took place in July 2002 and December 2004 in the PNC, at which time most of the males were aged 51. Many records of old convictions were not found in the PNC, and several convictions before 2002 were not found until the 2004 search, which covered NIS as well as PNC.  The earliest date listed in the PNC was counted as the date on which an offense was committed. The Home Office report (Farrington et al., 2006) and many previous analyses were based on criminal records up to age 50 based on these searches (for example, see Piquero et al., 2012). A further search of the PNC was then completed in March 2011, when most males were aged 57. Conviction records up to age 56 were analyzed for the first time in Farrington et al. (2013). The most recent PNC search was completed in April 2017. Given the typical delay of several months between the commission of an offense and a record appearing in the PNC, it is likely that all offenses committed up to the end of August 2016 would be recorded. Since the youngest male in the CSDD was born in August 1954, it is considered that all CSDD males have been searched in criminal records at least up to their 62nd birthday. Therefore, information is now available about all offenses committed up to age 61.99. For comparability with the G3 children, officially recorded cautions (police warnings) were counted as well as convictions in the PNC, since cautions were routinely recorded on a national basis from 1995. In this chapter, “convictions” include officially recorded cautions. In total, 178 males were convicted up to age 61 (44% of 409 at risk) for a total of 947 offenses, including 57 cautions. In total, 41 offenders were cautioned, but only seven of these were not convicted as well. Convictions were only counted if they were for “standard list” (more serious) offenses, thereby excluding minor crimes such as minor traffic infractions and simple drunkenness. The most common offenses that were included were thefts, burglaries, and unauthorized takings of vehicles, although there were also quite a few offenses of violence, vandalism, fraud, and drug abuse. The definition of a “standard list” offense changed over time. In particular, common assault became a standard list offense in July 1995, drunk driving was added to the standard list in January

3.2  Age and Crime

23

1996, and being drunk and disorderly was added in April 1997. All of these types of offenses were counted. The paper and microfiche records were extremely detailed (e.g., in their descriptions of the circumstances of offenses) but the computerized PNC records (actually the Home Office/Ministry of Justice extract from the PNC) were not. There were major problems in deciding whether a man found in the PNC search was really our man, particularly in the case of people with common names and no middle names, and when there were slight differences in names or dates of birth between PNC and our own records. Fortunately, we were able to establish whether each PNC man was our man unambiguously in all cases, using our information from interviews and previous criminal records and knowledge about the man’s address (compared with his places of arrest and conviction, which were listed on the PNC file). In many cases, the man and/or his female partner provided information about convictions in interviews. It would have been impossible to establish with certainty who was or was not our man in the PNC data in the absence of our information from interviews and previous criminal records.

3.2 Age and Crime This chapter reviews key issues in criminal career research: the current (e.g., annual) prevalence and cumulative prevalence of offending, ages of the first and last offenses, duration of criminal careers, numbers and types of offenses committed at different ages, continuity in offending over time, and the relation between ages of onset and the frequency and duration of offending. Reviews of previous research on these topics may be found in the extant literature (Blokland, 2005; Blumstein et al., 1986; Farrington, 1997, 2019; Laub & Sampson, 2003; MacLeod et  al., 2012; Piquero et al., 2003; Soothill et al., 2009). Table 3.1 shows the number of CSDD males who were convicted in each of 7 age ranges, from 10–13 to 50–61. These age ranges were chosen in light of applicable criminal justice laws in England and Wales at the time. Persons aged 10–13 were Table 3.1  Offenses during each age range Age range 10–13 14–16 17–20 21–29 30–39 40–49 50–61 Total

No. males at risk 409 409 407 403 392 380 369

No. offenders 40 83 96 80 57 47 31

No. of offenses 67 174 245 194 112 97 58 947

No. first offenders 40 56 40 18 15 7 2 178

Cumulative no. first offenders 40 96 136 154 169 176 178 178

Probability of first conviction .098 .152 .129 .067 .063 .033 .010

24

3  Official Criminal Careers

termed “children,” those aged 14–16 were termed “young persons,” those aged 17–20 were termed “young adults,” and those aged 21 or older were termed “adults.” It is likely that criminal justice decisions were influenced by these categories; for example, the police may have been more willing to arrest and charge a 17-year-old young adult than a 16-year-old young person. As mentioned, 178 males were convicted out of 409 males at risk (excluding two males who emigrated before age 10). The number of males at risk in each age range is shown in Table 3.1. For example, 369 males were at risk at age 50–61 because 23 males emigrated up to age 49 (of whom four were convicted) and 19 males died up to age 49 (of whom 14 were convicted). Information about emigration came from interviews and attempted interviews up to age 48, while information about deaths was obtained from repeated searches of records. The latest search was in 2020, and death certificates were obtained up to 2019 (Skinner et al., 2022). It is considered that information about deaths is complete up to age 65, by which age 54 males had died, of whom 30 were convicted. The number of deaths was 44 up to age 61 and 19 up to age 49 (as mentioned). It is known that convicted males tend to die relatively early (see e.g., Skinner & Farrington, 2020). The cumulative prevalence of convictions for the CSDD males (171 out of 409 up to age 52, or 42%) is somewhat higher than for males born in England and Wales in 1953; 33% were convicted of a standard list offense up to age 52 (Ministry of Justice, 2010). However, the two figures are not totally comparable. For example, the national figure includes convictions of visitors and immigrants, who would not be part of the 1953 birth cohort. Nevertheless, it is clear that the cumulative prevalence of convictions of males in the CSDD sample is higher than the national figure. The number of offenses (70) and different offenders (46) peaked at age 17, closely followed by age 18 (69 offenses and 44 different offenders), as shown in Fig. 3.1. Expressed as a rate, there were 11 offenders and 17 offenses per 100 males at age 17 (N = 407 males at risk). There were an average of 17 offenses per year at

80 Offenders 70 Offenses 60 Number

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Age

Fig. 3.1  Distribution of the number of offenses and offenders across age (10–61)

3.2  Age and Crime

25

age 10–13, 58 offenses per year at age 14–16, 61 per year at age 17–20, falling to 22 per year at age 21–29, 11 per year at age 30–39, 10 per year at age 40–49, and five per year at age 50–61. The average age of offending was 25.3 years, with a standard deviation of 12.1. However, because of the skewness of the age-crime curve, it is better summarized using percentiles. The 25th percentile was at age 16, the median age of offending was at age 20, and the 75th percentile was at age 32. The number of first-time offenders peaked between ages 13 and 17 (when 87 of the 178 offenders committed their first offenses). There were only seven first offenders at age 40–49 and only two new offenders at age 50–61 (both actually at age 51). The average age of onset was 19.5, with a standard deviation of 8.8. However, percentiles are more realistic: the 25th percentile was at age 14.3, the median age of onset was at age 16.6, and the 75th percentile was at age 20.8. The most noteworthy feature of Table 3.1 is the decrease in the probability of a first conviction at older ages. This probability was highest at age 14–16 (.152) and then decreased to .129 at age 17–20, .067 at age 21–29, .063 at age 30–39, .033 at age 40–49, and only .010 (only two new offenders) at age 50–61. The probability of a first conviction at age 21 or later (.113) was significantly (p