WORK, INCOME SUPPORT, AND CRIME IN THE DUTCH WELFARE STATE: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY FOLLOWING VULNERABLE YOUTH INTO ADULTHOOD

• Author: JANNA VERBRUGGEN,ROBERT APEL,VICTOR R. VAN DER GEEST,ARJAN A. J. BLOKLAND
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12080
• Date: 01 November 2015

WORK, INCOME SUPPORT, AND CRIME IN THE

DUTCH WELFARE STATE: A LONGITUDINAL

STUDY FOLLOWING VULNERABLE YOUTH

INTO ADULTHOOD∗

JANNA VERBRUGGEN,1ROBERT APEL,2VICTOR R. VAN DER

GEEST,3,4 and ARJAN A. J. BLOKLAND3,5

1School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University

2School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University

3Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)

4Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, VU University Amsterdam

5Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University

KEYWORDS: criminal career, employment, income support, high-risk sample, gender

differences

Life-course criminological research has consistently suggested that employment can

reduce criminal behavior. However, it is unclear whether the financial aspects of em-

ployment or the social control that inheres in employment best explains the relationship

between employment and reduced offending. By using longitudinal information on a

sample of men and women (N =540) who were institutionalized in a Dutch juvenile

justice institution in the 1990s, this study examines the effects of employment as well

as the different types of income support on crime. Random- and fixed-effects models

show that for men, both work and income support are associated with a reduction in

the rate of offending. For women, however, although employment is correlated with a

lower offending rate, receiving income support, and in particular disability benefits, is

correlated with a higher offending rate. The findings support both theories that stress

the financial motivation for crime as well as theories that emphasize the importance of

informal social control for reducing offending.

Life-course criminology argues that making successful transitions to adult social roles

facilitates desistance from offending during the young adult years. A successful transi-

tion into the labor market seems especially important in this respect as unemployment

has repeatedly been found to be related to adult crime (Lageson and Uggen, 2013). Being

employed provides potential offenders with a source of income, thereby diminishing their

financial motivations for committing offenses. In addition, continued involvement in work

may provide potential offenders with a structured daily routine, a social network of con-

ventional colleagues, and a sense of meaning and self-worth, which they are increasingly

unlikely to be willing to jeopardize by engaging in criminal behavior. Research up to this

∗Direct correspondence to Janna Verbruggen, Cardiff University, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff

Centre for Crime, Law and Justice, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff, CF10

3WT, United Kingdom (e-mail: verbruggenj@cardiff.ac.uk).

C2015 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12080

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 53 Number 4 545–570 2015 545

546 VERBRUGGEN ET AL.

point indeed has shown that being employed is associated with increased psychological

well-being in adults (Hulin, 2002).

Yet, not all young adults can successfully transition into the labor market and some

suffer from—sometimes prolonged—periods of unemployment. Individual characteris-

tics, like low educational achievement, may render some youth particularly vulnerable

for unemployment, especially during periods of economic downturn. To provide a social

safety net for society’s most vulnerable members, the Netherlands has developed a rela-

tively generous system of income support for those who are in need of a minimum income

(De Gier and Ooijens, 2004). Although the transition to employment is the ultimate goal,

the idea is that those who cannot (find) work should nevertheless be supported. By reduc-

ing inequality through the redistribution of income, the Dutch welfare state aims to avoid

poverty and social exclusion, thereby preventing people from turning to illegal means to

make ends meet (De Mooij, 2006).

One group of young adults for whom the transition to the labor market is particu-

larly precarious consists of those youths who in their adolescent years displayed serious

behavior problems and were consequently institutionalized in a juvenile justice institu-

tion (Verbruggen, Blokland, and van der Geest, 2012).1Experiencing problems in mul-

tiple life domains, these youths face difficulties in adopting adult roles (Chung, Little,

and Steinberg, 2005). First, these youths often grow up in adverse family environments,

and their parents may be unable or unwilling to support them in their transition to adult-

hood (Schoeni and Ross, 2005). Second, these youths often have little personal capital

as most have acquired little education and many suffer from psychological or psychi-

atric problems. Third, these youths can experience difficulties resulting from the stigma

generated by their involvement in government systems such as child protection service

or the juvenile justice system, their stay in a juvenile justice institution, and a crimi-

nal record. Although, compared with nonvulnerable youths, previously institutionalized

youths need to overcome additional hurdles, they can and sometimes do make a suc-

cessful transition into adulthood and end up leading normal, conventional lives (Osgood

et al., 2005).

Because the Dutch income support system is specifically designed to function as a safety

net to support vulnerable groups, the question arises to what extent previously institution-

alized youths, vulnerable to failure in their transition to adulthood and at risk of develop-

ing extended criminal careers, actually profit from receiving benefits. Does governmental

support prevent them from turning to illegitimate means to provide for themselves? How

does the effect of governmental support compare with the effect of employment, which

provides not only income but also workplace social control and social capital, which are

thought pivotal in promoting criminal desistance (Laub and Sampson, 2003)? These ques-

tions guide the current study.

1. Similar to the current study, the study by Verbruggen, Blokland, and van der Geest (2012) used

data from the 17up study and examined the effects of employment, employment duration, and un-

employment duration on offending. Verbruggen, Blokland, and van der Geest found a significant

negative effect of employment on offending for both men and women. The current study builds on

this study by Verbruggen, Blokland, and van der Geest by comparing the effects of employment

with the effects of receiving income support on offending.