Street youth, unemployment, and crime: is it that simple? Using general strain theory to untangle the relationship.

• Author: Baron, Stephen W.
• Position: Canada

Introduction

While earlier research reported an inconsistent or weak relationship between unemployment and crime (see Box 1987; Chiricos 1987), recent work has generally revealed that unemployment, or changes to the unemployment rate, are positively related to some types of criminal behaviour (see Bellair and Roscigno 2000; Britt 1997, 2001; Cantor and Land 2001; Carlson and Michalowski 1997; Chamlin and Cochran 2000; Crutchfield and Pitchford 1997; Greenberg 2001; Hale and Sabbagh 1991; Kleck and Chiricos 2002; Krivo and Peterson 2004; Land, Cantor, and Russell 1995; O'Brien 2001; Paternoster and Bushway 2001; Witt, Clarke, and Fielding 1999). Most of this research, however, has utilized aggregate-level data linking unemployment rates to crime rates. Critics have argued that the link between unemployment and crime rests on a micro-theoretical foundation that cannot be captured utilizing aggregate-level data (Box 1987; Levitt 2001; Long and Witte 1981; Orsagh and Witt 1981). These scholars observe that the theoretical explanations for the link between unemployment and crime focus on subjective perceptions, interpretations, and emotional reactions to the experience of unemployment (see Box; Cantor and Land; Greenberg; Levitt). Levitt (388) notes that inferences from aggregate-level data may be "misleading" and argues that this research cannot capture the "subtle predictions about a variety of possible behavioral channels through which the crime-unemployment nexus operates." Levitt (388) advocates the use of other approaches, including individual-level analysis, and notes that "surprisingly, however, there has been relatively little previous research on the subject utilizing these alternative strategies."

The limited available individual-level research does suggest that there is a relationship between unemployment and crime (Bachman, O'Malley, and Johnston 1978; Baron and Hartnagel 1997; Cernkovich, Giordano, and Rudolph 2000; Crowley 1984; Elliott 1994; Farrington, Gallagher, Morely, St Ledger, and West 1986; Hagan and McCarthy 1997; Hartnagel 1998; Hartnagel and Krahn 1989; Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger 1993; Shavit and Rattner 1988; Thornberry and Christianson 1984). This research, however, tends to be limited by its focus on objective information about respondents' employment status and history and, similar to aggregate-level work, tends to ignore the more subjective aspects of the theoretical foundations (although see Baron and Hartnagel; Cernkovich et al.; Hartnagel). Crutchfield and Pitchford (1997: 91) suggest, "[At] a minimum we should be aware that simplistic notions about the relationship between unemployment and crime have limited utility." In response, researchers have been encouraged to pay greater attention to the variables theoretically thought to link unemployment and crime (Box 1987; Box and Hale 1985). Scholars note that the way people interpret their unemployment should influence the way they respond to unemployment (Box; Box and Hale; Hartnagel). The effect of unemployment may not be influenced only by actual financial problems but also by perceptions of economic difficulties and judgments of fairness in reward distribution. Further, responses to unemployment may depend on people's employment histories, beliefs about the causes of their unemployment, their social circles, and the importance they place on employment. People respond with different emotions to their unemployment and these feelings can influence whether they engage in crime. Box and Hale note that because of these complexities one would expect only a sub-population of the unemployed to become involved in crime, and it is because of these various dimensions that attempts to establish "monocausal connections" have fallen short (see also Box).

The following paper explores the link between unemployment and crime, using a sample of homeless street youth, focusing on the way that these young people interpret their unemployment experiences and how these interpretations lead to crime. Street youths are often unemployed, spend periods of time without shelter, and "hang out" on the street regularly (Baron 2004; Hagan and McCarthy 1997). The absence of legal financial resources to help house and feed themselves, and the potential for alienation as a result of these experiences, leaves these youths at risk for criminal activity (Baron; Hagan and McCarthy), making them an ideal sample to explore the unemployment--crime relationship.

Theoretical explanations of unemployment and crime

There is no shortage of theoretical explanations to help understand the link between unemployment and crime. Box (1987) notes that nearly every major criminological theory can be interpreted to support the link between the two. However, in light of the call by critics to examine a wide array of the more subjective components of the unemployment experience, one theory that is potentially fruitful in explaining the link is Agnew's (1992, 2001, 2006) general strain theory (GST). This approach focuses attention on how objective experiences, subjective interpretations, and emotional reactions can all be linked to crime. Agnew emphasizes how negative experiences can lead to criminal behaviour. His theory outlines several categories of strain into which unemployment might fall, including goal blockage, failure to achieve positively valued goals, and presentation of negative stimuli. Agnew (2001) also distinguishes between objective strains and subjective strains. Objective strains are conditions thought to be disliked generally by most members of a given group (e.g., unemployment), while subjective strains are disliked by the individuals actually experiencing them (Agnew 2001, 2006). He notes that individuals can differ in their interpretation of objective strains and these may be influenced by values, resources, and life circumstances.

Agnew observes that strain will more likely result in crime when it is viewed as unjust or when it "involves the voluntary and intentional violation of a relevant justice norm" (2001: 329) and when people "believe their strain is undeserved" (2001: 330). The impact of strain may also vary, depending upon its severity or magnitude, duration, recency, and centrality. Strains high or severe in magnitude decrease the perceived costs of criminal coping and increase the disposition for criminal coping. Strains that are of high frequency, longer in duration, and unresolved are expected to have a greater negative impact on an individual. Finally, strains that threaten core goals, needs, and values are seen as central and more likely to provoke a criminal response.

Agnew (2001, 2006) outlines the major sources of economic strain that will have a significant impact on crime: unemployment, relative deprivation, and monetary dissatisfaction. Unemployment may increase an individual's motivation to commit crime to overcome financial difficulties. Further, those on the margins of society are more likely to be monetarily dissatisfied and/or relatively deprived, living in "poverty in the midst of plenty" (Agnew 2006: 73; Agnew, Cullen, Burton, Evans, and Dunaway 1996), and these can both lead to crime. Unhappiness with one's current financial situation is seen as key because it is linked to the "reality of the moment" and not some abstract future often suggested by measures utilized in early work on strain theory, and this dissatisfaction is more likely to pressure or propel people into crime (see Cernkovich et al. 2000: 145). Relative deprivation is important because strain is seen as a function of the achievements of others in one's comparative reference group, as well as one's own failure to achieve. Pivotal here is the argument that the egalitarian ideology in North American society encourages individuals to compare themselves to those higher in the economic system, leading to resentment, frustration, and hostility (Agnew 2006; see also Passas 1997).

Agnew (1992: 59) argues that strain can lead to various affective states, including the "critical emotional reaction" of anger. Anger is viewed as key because it is associated with feelings of power and stimulates desires for revenge and retaliation (Agnew 2006: 32). The level of anger should be closely linked to subjective strains in particular, although Agnew (2001) admits that similar levels of subjective strain can lead to different emotional responses or varying levels of the same emotion. Agnew suggests that anger is often experienced when individuals have difficulty satisfying goals. Further, it is a method of responding to perceived injustice when "individuals feel they have the right to what others have" (Agnew 2006: 33). Anger is most likely to result when people make external attributions, or blame the cause of their strain on others (see also Hoffman and Ireland 1995). Further, people's beliefs or "constitutive rules" as well as one's peer group may also influence interpretations of strain and the type and level of emotional response that might evolve in response to strain (Bernard 1990; Hoffman and Ireland). Peer groups can also influence the types of attributions that people make, and this interaction can help determine if people will react to strain with anger (Hoffman and Ireland).

An angry emotional reaction to strain leads actors to consider "corrective action," which may include criminal activity. Whether one chooses criminal corrective action is said to be influenced by a number of conditioning factors: attributions, deviant attitudes, and deviant peers. These conditioning factors either buffer one from strain or increase one's disposition towards criminal behaviour. Deviant peers can model and support criminal behaviour as responses to strain (see Hoffman and Ireland 1995). Criminal beliefs or "regulative rules" can influence options for appropriate behavioural responses to strain (Bernard 1990), and external attributions are said to make one more likely to seek...