Mea Culpa - The complexity of financial problems among probation clients

Omschrijving

The relationship between socioeconomic factors and crime is a classic theme in criminological literature. However, the relationship between debt and crime is still unclear, and little is known about the causality of this relationship and the factors that influence it. In addition, effective interventions and guidelines to adequately support offenders with debt are limited. Therefore, this thesis aims to systematically gain more insight into the factors that influence the relationship between debt and crime among probation clients and to contribute to developing tools that probation officers and other forensic social professionals can use to support clients with debt adequately. The relationship between debt and crime was studied by (1) a systematic and scoping literature review (5 studies were included in the systematic review and 24 studies in the scoping review), (2) a client file study including risk assessment data of a sample of 250 Dutch probation clients, (3) a quantitative study including recidivism data of the same sample of 250 Dutch probation clients, (4) interviews with 33 Dutch probation officers and 16 clients, and (5) a multiple case study focusing on working elements in the supervision of individual offenders (5 cases). The results show that debt is prevalent among probation clients, hinders resocialization, and increases recidivism risk. Debt and crime are not only related directly but are also related by a complex interplay of problems in different life domains, such as problems regarding childhood, education and work, and mental and physical health. Notwithstanding the strong relationship between debt and crime, financial assistance for probation clients with debts is limited. As debt is strongly related to problems in other life domains, a systematic collaboration between professionals of different disciplines is necessary to support clients with debt adequately.

Introduction

In the Netherlands, about 30,000 prisoners return to society every year. Probation officers supervise a substantial part of them, aiming to reduce the risk of recidivism and stimulate resocialization. In daily practice, probation officers notice that the progress clients make in supervision relating to several life domains, such as finding housing and work and establishing relationships, is often hampered by the complex financial problems of clients. Earlier studies have shown that many probation clients have debts and score high on the financial items of the Recidivism Assessment Scales (Recidive Inschattingsschalen, RISc), the standard instrument used by the Dutch probation service for structured risk assessment (Jungmann et al., 2014). In addition, studies found that more than half of the prisoners have debts before and directly after incarceration (Beerthuizen et al., 2015; Noordhuijzen & Weijters, 2012). A possible explanation is that social assistance benefits are terminated when people are incarcerated while fixed charges continue. In practice, debt increases the risk of recidivism in crime among these clients, for example, due to the stress they cause and their disrupting influence on clients’ lives. This influence of debt on crime risk may be direct, for example, because clients commit thefts because they have no money to pay for their basic needs. It can also be indirect as a consequence of debt occupying them to such an extent that there is no mental and practical space for the behavioral changes needed to desist from crime. 

Without help, many probation clients hardly have any perspective on a debt-free future. In theory, they can use municipal debt counseling. However, in practice, they often do not have access to it for several reasons, for example, because they relapse into substance abuse, do not stick to appointments, or have informal or illegal debts. Probation officers often lack tools to adequately support clients with financial problems and thus, without a straightforward methodological approach, apply their own methods. In addition, as financial stabilization often takes more time than the regular two-year duration of probation trajectories, the clients’ financial situation is often not considered in probation officers’ considerations about finishing probation supervision. As a result, probation supervision often seems to be finished successfully regarding non-financial life domains, but because of their unstable financial situation, clients recidivate within a short time afterward. 

What is the relationship between debt and crime?

Empirical studies
Daily forensic practice shows that debt and crime are highly interwoven. In exploring the relationship between debt and crime, studies primarily investigated the influence of macroeconomic factors on crime. For example, studies have investigated the influence of factors such as unemployment (Bjerk, 2007; Phillips & Land, 2012; Skardhamar & Savolainen, 2014) and (neighborhood) poverty (Comanor & Phillips, 2002; Galloway & Skardhamar, 2010; Hsieh & Pugh, 1993; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2001) on crime. In addition, evidence exists for a relationship between court-related fees and crime (Bannon et al., 2010; Link, 2021; Montes et al., 2021). 

Few studies have investigated the relationship between debt and crime at the individual level. Several studies have shown that the individuals’ financial situation may provide valuable knowledge about the relationship between debt and crime, as it seems to better indicate worsening financial situations than macroeconomic factors (see Aaltonen et al., 2013). In their 2014 study on financial problems among (addicted) probation clients, Jungmann and colleagues referred to several studies strongly indicating that debt and crime at the individual level are related (e.g., Agnew et al., 2008; Foley, 2011; Hoeve et al., 2011). These studies showed plausible indirect relationships between debt and crime via interfering factors, such as housing, work, relationships, attitude, and behavior.