Age-Graded Heterogeneity in the Relationship Between Hours of Work and Crime

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231170852
• Author: Chae M. Jaynes,Mateus R. Santos,Kelly E. Kortright,Deanna N. Devlin
• Date: 01 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 8, August 2023, 1163 –1186.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231170852

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1163

AGE-GRADED HETEROGENEITY IN THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOURS OF WORK

AND CRIME

CHAE M. JAYNES

MATEUS R. SANTOS

KELLY E. KORTRIGHT

University of South Florida

DEANNA N. DEVLIN

Farmingdale State College

Criminal justice researchers have focused on theoretical thresholds of work and their association with offending—such as

“full-time” work among adults or “intense” work among adolescents. Despite the field’s reliance on these thresholds, there

has been little empirical inquiry surrounding them. Using individual-level fixed effects and a sample of high-risk individuals,

we evaluate age-graded heterogeneity in the relationship between hours of work and crime. Findings suggest that the asso-

ciation between hours of work and offending is negative and mostly linear among adults. However, the relationship is far

more complex among adolescents, as it varies greatly by crime type and the specific number of hours worked. We discuss

the practical implications of these findings with the suggestion that researchers and policy makers reconsider oversimplified

work thresholds, as working more hours is not uniformly criminogenic among high-risk adolescents, whereas more hours

worked is generally beneficial for young adults.

Keywords: employment; work; hours; delinquency; crime

The relationship between work and crime has received a great deal of attention because

of the hypothesized protective role of employment, particularly full-time employment,

in deterring crime and reducing recidivism (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Yet emergent findings

have led scholars to question whether there are groups of individuals for whom work may

not be as protective (Bushway & Apel, 2012; Nguyen & Loughran, 2018). Chief among

these groups is adolescents, to whom work can be criminogenic.

While theory suggests that full-time employment (typically defined as 40 hours per

week) is protective for adults (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993), it is

unclear whether 40 hours is a threshold necessary to prompt a reduction in offending or if

any increase in hours of work has a negative association with offending. In general,

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Chae M. Jaynes, Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 E.

Fowler Avenue, SOC 332, Tampa, FL 33620; e-mail: jaynes@usf.edu.

1170852CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231170852Criminal Justice and BehaviorJaynes et al. / Age, Hours of Work and Crime

research-article2023

1164 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

practitioners tend to encourage full-time adult employment, especially among high-risk

justice involved populations (Crutchfield, 2014; Kimchi, 2019). Moreover, evidence sur-

rounding the relationship among adolescents often indicates that “intense work,” typically

defined as working 20 or more hours per week, is associated with increased offending (Lee,

2017; Lee & Cho, 2018; Monahan et al., 2011; Staff et al., 2010a; L. Steinberg et al., 1993;

but see also Paternoster et al., 2003). In line with these findings, policies limit the number

of hours adolescents can work (National Research Council [NRC], 1998). However, like for

the adult population, the precise threshold(s) where work becomes criminogenic or protec-

tive among adolescents is unclear. In fact, it is likely that few criminologists know the ori-

gin of the “40-hour” adult and “20-hour” adolescent work thresholds or are familiar with

whether these thresholds are evidence-based. An important question remains as to whether

employment would be more beneficial to individuals with a history of criminal involvement

if stakeholders were aware of the thresholds where work is protective or criminogenic and

whether these thresholds are age graded. Crime prevention efforts, for example, could

extend beyond simply focusing on offering jobs to justice-involved individuals to prescrib-

ing more specific dosages of how much individuals should work.

This study draws on a longitudinal sample of high-risk individuals from the Pathways to

Desistance (“Pathways”) study to evaluate age-graded heterogeneity in the relationship

between hours of work and crime. Using monthly-level data and fixed effects models, we

consider the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Is there an association between hours worked and offending?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Are there policy-relevant work thresholds associated with a

decreased likelihood of offending?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Do these work thresholds differ between adolescents and adults?

Our goal is to shed light on the evidence surrounding typical threshold assumptions to

help optimize the level of employment for individuals at a high risk of recidivism.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOURS WORKED AND OFFENDING: AN AGE-

GRADED APPROACH

ADULTHOOD

Various criminological theories hypothesize a negative relationship between hours of work

and crime, to the extent that employment is seen as a key policy lever to deter those with a

history of criminal involvement (Crutchfield, 2014; Kimchi, 2019). Strain theory suggests

that crime is the result of blocked legitimate means to success—such as quality employment

(Agnew, 2006; Broidy, 2001; Merton, 1938). Within this theory, working more hours can

generate increased earnings and reduce financial strain that could otherwise pressure an indi-

vidual to offend. Sampson and Laub’s (1993) age-graded theory of informal social control

similarly posits that employment becomes a particularly salient protective institution in young

adulthood, capable of deterring crime. In line with Hirschi’s (1969) notion of involvement,

they state that “work, especially full-time work . . . gives structure to one’s time and provides

fewer opportunities for offending . . . The simple fact is that people who work are kept busy

and less likely to get in trouble” (Laub & Sampson, 2003, p. 47). This idea also aligns with

routine activity theory which posits that employment reduces the number of hours (or oppor-

tunities) individuals can devote to crime (Apel & Horney, 2017; Cohen & Felson, 1979).