Annotated Bibliography

profilemalld614
Examining_Systematic_Crime_Rep.pdf

ORIGINAL PAPER

Examining Systematic Crime Reporting Bias Across Three Immigrant Generations: Prevalence, Trends, and Divergence in Self-Reported and Official Reported Arrests

Bianca E. Bersani1 • Alex R. Piquero2

Published online: 16 July 2016 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Objective Mounting evidence reveals that foreign-born, first generation immigrants have significantly lower levels of criminal involvement compared to their US-born, second and

third-plus generation peers. This study investigates whether this finding is influenced by

differential crime reporting practices by testing for systematic crime reporting bias across

first, second, and third-plus generation immigrants.

Methods This study draws on data from the Pathways to Desistance Study, a longitudinal investigation of the transition from adolescence to young adulthood among a sample of

serious adolescent offenders. Self-reported and official reports of arrest are compared

longitudinally across ten waves of data spanning 7 years from adolescence into young

adulthood for nearly 1300 adjudicated males and females.

Results This study reveals a high degree of correspondence between self-reports of arrest and official reports of arrest when compared within groups distinguished by immigrant

generation. Longitudinal patterns of divergence, disaggregated by under-reporting and

over-reporting, in self- and official-reports of arrest indicated a very high degree of sim-

ilarity regardless of immigrant generation. We found no evidence of systematic crime

reporting bias among foreign-born, first generation immigrants compared to their US-born

peers.

Conclusions First generation immigrants are characterized by lower levels of offending that are not attributable to a differential tendency to under-report their involvement in

crime.

& Bianca E. Bersani [email protected]

Alex R. Piquero [email protected]

1 Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA

2 Ashbel Smith Professor of Criminology, Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

123

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 DOI 10.1007/s10940-016-9314-9

Keywords Immigration and crime � Crime reporting bias � Self-reported arrests � Official arrests � Longitudinal

Introduction

Estimates calculated by the US Census Bureau using data from the 2013 American

Community Survey (ACS) indicate that immigrants account for 13 % of the total US

population, increasing by 1.3 % alone between 2012 and 2013. The immigrant population

is projected to continue to grow, reaching 19 % of the total US population by 2050 (Passel

and Cohn 2008). The growth of the US immigrant population coincides with a renewed

interest into the extent to which immigration and crime are linked. At the community level,

research finds a negative relationship between immigrant concentration and crime, par-

ticularly violent crime, such that areas characterized by high levels of immigrant con-

centration are associated with less crime compared to areas with low immigrant

concentration levels (see e.g., Ewing et al. 2015; Ferraro 2016; Lee and Ramiro 2009;

Sampson et al. 2005). More recently, longitudinal evidence demonstrates a pattern

whereby communities experiencing increases in immigrant concentration (percent foreign-

born living in an area) over time experience decreases in crime over time (MacDonald

et al. 2013; Ousey and Kubrin 2014; Wadsworth 2010). Research conducted at the indi-

vidual level compliments these results with findings showing significantly lower rates of

involvement in crime among foreign-born, first generation immigrants compared to their

second and third-plus generation peers (Bersani 2014; Bersani et al. 2014; Morenoff and

Astor 2006; Rumbaut et al. 2006; Sampson et al. 2005). This pattern emerges in data drawn

from the general US population, immigrant destination cities, and from offender-based

samples. Though the empirical consensus demonstrating a lack of a relationship between

immigration and crime is, perhaps, surprising given the current tenor of discussion (see

Chaves 2008), 1 it is noteworthy that this same relationship has been documented in

empirical research for nearly a century (see Simes and Waters 2014).

Despite this ‘‘emerging scholarly consensus’’ (Lee and Ramiro 2009; see also Sampson

2008) on the (lack of an) immigration-crime nexus, an important omission from this line of

work is the consideration of potential systematic crime reporting bias, which may dis-

proportionately affect foreign-born immigrants and consequently affect the representation

of immigrant involvement in crime. That is, the lower levels of offending observed among

foreign-born, first generation immigrants may be due to differences in offending or to

1 Interestingly, Trump’s (2015) comments during his presidential candidacy regarding immigrants and the

crime and disease they bring to the United States are remarkably similar to early twentieth century com- ments about the biological inferiority of the immigrant population (the pollution of the purer ‘‘American Blood’’ Orebaugh 1929). Senator Henry Cabot Lodge speaks to the risks of immigration stating ‘‘…there is a limit to the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race; and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are running the most frightful risk that a people can run. The lowering of a great race means not only its own decline, but that of civilization. … [We] are exposed to but a single danger, and that is by changing the quality of our race and citizenship through the wholesale infusion of races whose traditions and inheritances, whose thoughts and beliefs are wholly alien to ours, and with whom we have never assimilated or even been associated in the past. The danger has begun. … There lies the peril at the portals of our land; there is pressing the tide of unrestricted immigration. The time has certainly come, if not to stop, at least to check, to sift, and to restrict those immigrants’’ (1909: 264–266, The Restriction of Immigration).

836 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

differences in the reporting of crime. 2 Historically, the limitations of official and self-report

data have long been recognized; however, as we explicate below, these limitations may be

compounded when examining immigrant-related crime. For instance, differential treatment

in the process of the administration of the law (affecting officially reported arrests) and the

complexities arising from social desirability reporting and deportation concerns (affecting

self-reported arrests) may over- or under-count, respectively, immigrant involvement in

crime.

This research investigates this important issue by assessing the relationship between

immigrant generational status and systematic crime reporting bias in three key ways. Using

data from a sample of high-risk, adjudicated youth, we first examine the prevalence of self-

reported offending, self-reported arrests and officially reported arrests and compare the

extent to which these measures of criminal behavior converge and diverge within and

across subsamples of first, second, and third-plus generation immigrants. Second, we

examine trends in reports of arrest over a 7-year period across immigrant subsamples

looking at patterns of convergence and divergence in self- and officially-reported arrests

longitudinally. Third, we test whether immigrant generational status is a predictor of crime

reporting bias (over-, under-, and divergence). Collectively, this research contributes to the

small number of studies that compare offending patterns in both official and self-report

records but more importantly fills a neglected gap in the body of research aimed at

advancing understanding of the immigrant-crime nexus.

Prior Literature

Official and Self-Reported Offending Comparisons

In assessing individual criminal activity, researchers have relied on two types of reports,

those from official data bases, such as police contacts, arrests, and convictions, and those

from self-report surveys. Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses and one

measure is not inherently better or more preferred than the other. As several authoritative

reviews of this literature exist elsewhere, we do not delve into details here (see Thornberry

and Krohn 2000, 2003). In short, findings from this line of work suggest a high degree of

overlap in measuring offending across both measurement approaches; that is, persons who

appear in official databases tend more often than not to self-report offending and vice versa

(see Thornberry and Krohn 2000; Piquero and Brame 2008). At the same time, when data

are disaggregated across key demographic groups (e.g., race and gender) important dif-

ferences emerge in the extent to which self-report measures map onto officially reported

arrests. In general, the consensus on reporting concordance appears to be mixed and

dependent upon data, crime type, and method of comparison with some studies indicating a

range of differences (Hindelang et al. 1981; Krohn et al. 2013) whereas others document

important similarities (Piquero and Brame 2008; Farrington et al. 1996; Joliffe et al. 2003;

Piquero et al. 2014). For example, some cross-sectional studies utilizing non-offender

samples reveal a moderate to strong concordance between official and self-report records

2 The arguments surrounding differential reporting versus differential involvement have long formed the

foundation of the disproportionate minority contact debate. That is, is the over-representation of minorities in the criminal justice system due to disparities in the involvement in crime across race or to disparities in the differential processing of minorities through the criminal justice system; or a combination of both (Piquero 2008)?

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 837

123

but also reveal differential validity across race and/or gender (Hindelang et al. 1981; Kirk

2006; Lab and Allen 1984; Maxfield et al. 2000; Tracy 1987). In some instances, there was

under-reporting, other instances reveal over-reporting, and still other instances yield strong

concordance with no differential validity (see Farrington et al. 1996; Brame et al. 2004).

Two recent studies are worth a more expanded review because each of them, separately,

deal with approaches we combine in the current study.

Krohn et al. (2013) used longitudinal data from the Rochester Youth Development

Study to examine both over and under-reporting in self-reported and official arrests. Their

analyses failed to detect any gender differences for either over- or under-reporting, but they

did find that Blacks under-reported arrests while Whites over-reported arrests. As well,

these authors found that any race or gender differences in self-reports tended to become

insignificant when they controlled for the number of prior arrests. Using data from the

Pathways to Desistance Study, Piquero et al. (2014a, b) investigate the overlap between

official records (using a national search) and self-reports of arrests across race and gender.

Their findings showed moderate agreement between the two measurement approaches in

general as well as across race and gender. Further, their analysis failed to reveal any race

differences in official arrests but did detect gender differences in the prevalence of official

arrests above and beyond the effect of self-reported arrests.

In short, the evidence is rather mixed on the concordance between self-reports and

official records and even less studied with respect to over- and under-reporting. This is an

important issue because key conclusions about the nature and patterning of offending could

be influenced by these reporting differences. It is important to note that crime reporting

differences only matter to the extent that they systematically affect one group more (or

less) than another group. Related to the focus of this research, if self-reports of arrest are

disproportionately lower among first generation immigrants, then conclusions based on

self-report data demonstrating their lower rates of offending are called into question. If

however, all youth undercount their involvement in crime in the same way, then com-

parisons across groups are not biased.

Immigrant Offending: Generational Differences and Crime Reporting Methodology

A recent report summarizing the state of the literature on the immigrant-crime nexus

concludes ‘‘…the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not ‘‘criminals’’ by any commonly accepted definition of the term’’ (Ewing et al. 2015:1). This finding is not

necessarily a novel discovery; research dating back more than a century documents a

pattern whereby the foreign-born are involved in crime at significantly lower rates than

their peers (see e.g., Bowler 1931; Immigration Commission 1911; Simes and Waters

2014; Van Vechten 1941) with concerns of criminal behavior directed at successive

immigrant generations (Bowler 1931; Wickersham Commission 1931; Sutherland 1924/

1934). Much of this research utilized self-reports of criminal behavior where respondents

are asked to detail their involvement, and often frequency of involvement, in behaviors

including a range of risky/delinquent/criminal acts, substance use, and arrest histories.

Regardless of the operationalization of criminal behavior, results show a persistent pattern

of lower problem behavior among first generation immigrants with higher rates among

second and third generation, US-born peers (see e.g., Bersani 2014; Bersani et al. 2014;

Harris 1999; Morenoff and Astor 2006; Powell et al. 2010; Rumbaut et al. 2006; Sampson

et al. 2005; Vaughn et al. 2014).

838 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

Using data from the PHDCN, Sampson et al. (2005) examined racial/ethnic gaps in the

perpetration of violence among nearly 3000 young adults. Findings suggest that much of

the Hispanic-white gap in offending is explained by immigrant generation and immigrant

neighborhood composition. That is, the odds of violence among first generation immigrants

are nearly half those of the third generation with second generation immigrants’ odds of

violence falling between the first and third generations. While the odds of violence are

lower among first generation immigrants compared to their native-born white peers, the

direction of this relationship changes with successive immigrant generations; by the third

generation the odds of violence outpace their white, native-born peers. Scrutinizing the

complexities of immigrant status further with these data, Morenoff and Astor (2006) find

that markers of increased assimilation (earlier age of migration, higher acculturation) were

associated with a higher likelihood of violence. In short, those in the US for longer periods

of time and more assimilated into the US mainstream have a higher likelihood of

offending.

Studies assessing immigrant generational differences in general delinquent behavior

also consistently demonstrate lower levels of risky behavior among foreign-born, first

generation immigrants compared to their native-born peers (Bersani 2014; Harris 1999;

Powell et al. 2010; Vaught et al. 2014). Powell et al. (2010) used three waves of the

National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) data, a nationally rep-

resentative, school-based sample of US adolescents in grades 7–12 during the 1994–1995

academic year, to plot trajectories of delinquency spanning adolescence into adulthood and

found consistently lower rates of non-violent delinquency among first generation immi-

grants. More recently, using data from a general population sample, Bersani (2014)

mapped trajectories of offending across immigration generation from early adolescence

into young adulthood for nearly 8000 individuals. Findings again reveal that the prevalence

of offending is significantly lower among foreign-born, first generation immigrants com-

pared to second and third-plus generation, native-born individuals. Moreover, the pattern

of offending observed for first generation immigrants is characterized by a low-rate of

offending lasting into young adulthood while the presence of a chronic, high-rate offender

is virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants.

Research utilizing official reports of criminal behavior reaches similar conclusions.

Foreign-born, first generation immigrants have lower rates of incarceration (Rumbaut et al.

2006) and arrest (Bersani et al. 2014; Jennings et al. 2013) compared to their successive

generation immigrant peers. Rates of incarceration for foreign-born males ages 18–39 in

2000 were dwarfed by rates of incarceration for their native-born peers across racial and

ethnic divisions leading Rumbaut et al. (2006) to report that ‘‘[t]he advantage for immi-

grants vis-à-vis natives applies to every ethnic group without exception.’’ Concentrating on

arrest histories among a sample of Hispanic inmates, Jennings et al. (2013) model tra-

jectories of arrest from 18 to 50 years of age. Using immigrant generation to predict groups

distinguished by their rates of arrest over the life course, the authors find that foreign-born

Hispanics were significantly more likely to be characterized by the low-rate offending

trajectory. More recently, in an effort to isolate and observe a sample of immigrants

arguably most at risk of serious offending, Bersani et al. (2014) examine longitudinal

trajectories of offending among a sample of high-risk, adjudicated adolescents and com-

pare rates of arrest across subsamples defined by immigrant generation. While rates of

official reports of arrest are similar across groups in adolescence, first generation immi-

grants show a pattern of desistance from crime that begins significantly earlier than their

second and third-plus generation black and white peers.

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 839

123

Factors Influencing the Differential Reporting of Offending

Despite an extensive body of work demonstrating a persistent pattern of lower crime

among the foreign-born, first generation immigrant population—robust to variation in

measures of crime/offending, sample population (general or offender-based), and modeling

strategies—these findings may be contaminated by immigrant-specific crime reporting

biases which may artificially deflate (or inflate) immigrant involvement in crime. Here, we

highlight several factors that may systematically bias the self- or official-reporting of crime

in ways that differentially affect immigrants. While not an exhaustive list, these issues

draw attention to the unique situation of immigrants that may hold salience when quan-

tifying their involvement in and reporting of crime.

Perhaps the most recurrent theme in the literature concerns the relationship between

immigrants and the police. To the extent that immigrants hold negative perceptions of the

police, their cooperation with and enthusiasm for working with the police and reporting

crime is diminished. Immigrants’ perceptions of crime and the police are shaped by a

variety of experiences; in a broad sense, they may possess a general distrust of authority as

an outgrowth of previous experiences (direct or vicarious) or belief systems. For instance,

research illustrates that the imprint of life experiences in one’s country of origin is resilient

to migratory change (Davis 1985; Menjivar and Bejarano 2004; Pogrebin and Poole 1990).

Some countries of origin have histories of corrupt law enforcement agencies, personnel and

practices. 3 In this sense, negative experiences with the police in one’s home country can

taint perceptions of US criminal justice agents (see also Kirk et al. 2012; Tyler et al. 2010).

Furthermore, immigrants who have had contact with US immigration officials or those who

are unable to distinguish between US immigration officials and local police authorities may

harbor a fear of reprisal and deportation efforts (aimed at themselves, family members, or

friends) from local criminal justice agents (see e.g., Government Accounting Office 2009).

These concerns echo loudly in an era marked by increased attention to the strengthening of

immigration laws. Provine et al. (2012) document that the US has increasingly adopted a

devolution of immigration control whereby the responsibility for immigration enforcement

is shouldered by local police (e.g., authorized to inquire about one’s legal status, access to

deportation status in criminal databases); responsibilities traditionally reserved for federal

level agents (see also Decker et al. 2009). As Gottschalk (2015: 215) states, the ‘‘line

between immigration enforcement and law enforcement is rapidly disappearing in the

United States’’ resulting in the coining of terms such as ‘‘crimmigration’’ and ‘‘imm-

carceration’’. The devolution of responsibilities may have unintended consequences and

increase crime as a result of the alienation of immigrants and severing of their ties to local

law enforcement agents (Kirk et al. 2012; Treyger et al. 2014).

Combined, the negative perceptions of and fear of reprisal from the police likely limit

the degree to which foreign-born, first generation immigrants cooperate with the police. To

the extent that crime is intra-racial/ethnic, differential rates in the reporting of crime and

victimization may undercount immigrant involvement in crime (Kubrin 2014; Theodore

2013). This is complicated further by research finding that immigrants are particularly

vulnerable to victimization and less likely to report crimes (experienced or observed)

(Provine et al. 2012; Zatz and Smith 2012), though a conclusion that immigrants are at

3 As an exemplar of this phenomenon, see documentation emerging from Mexico—where the majority of

US immigrants originate from and whom comprise the largest portion of the foreign-born sample in these data—noting the pervasiveness of corruption in the criminal justice system (see Corchado 2013).

840 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

disproportionate risk for victimization is inconclusive (see Kubrin and Desmond 2015;

MacDonald and Saunders 2012).

While a hearty literature suggests that immigrants may hold concerns that influence their

collaboration with US local police authorities, recent empirical findings challenge this

assumption (see Davis and Henderson 2003) and emphasize important complexities in

understanding variation in perceptions of the law (see e.g., Correia 2010; Kirk et al. 2012;

Piquero et al. 2014; Rengifo and Fratello 2015). Neighborhoods characterized by a higher

concentration of immigrants hold on average less cynical views of the law and are more

cooperative with legal authorities (Kirk et al. 2012). At the individual level, foreign-born, first

generation immigrants hold more positive perceptions of the law, less cynical attitudes

toward the legal system, and perceive more social costs associated with punishment com-

pared to their second generation immigrant and native-born peers (Piquero et al. 2014;

Rengifo and Fratello 2015). In addition to positive perceptions of law enforcement eroding

over time (across immigrant generation), Rengifo and Fratello (2015) find that positive views

of the police are weakened by increases in the frequency of involuntary police contact

(reported police stops). Interestingly, Davis and Henderson (2007) report that while the

foreign-born hold more positive perceptions of the police, they are also significantly less

likely toseekout assistance fromthepolice followinga crime. Ifthis isthe case, then they may

hold positive views of US criminal justice agents while at the same time fail to report crime.

There are also reasons to expect that the reported levels of immigrant crime may be inflated

stemming from differential treatment in the process of the administration of the law (Hagan

and Palloni 1998; see also Sellin 1938; Sutherland 1924/1934). Empirical evidence points to

disparities throughout the criminal justice system from inequalities in arrest, the disposition

of cases, and sentencing outcomes related to immigrant status. Despite their lower levels of

offending, Davies and Fagan (2012) found that immigrant communities experience dispro-

portionately higher levels of police enforcement (arrests and street stops). Similar to

minorities (Roberts 2011), immigrants experience disproportionate police contact for mis-

demeanor offenses that tangle them in the web of the criminal justice system. This exposure to

the criminal justice system leaves an indelible mark, resulting in lasting consequences the

most substantial of which may be the potential for transfer to deportation facilities (Gott-

schalk 2015). A greater likelihood of arrest, all else being equal, means that immigrants will

show up at disproportionate rates in official reports. Once in the criminal justice system,

immigrants may incur additional penalties. First, some are filtered out of the criminal system

to the civil system often losing the right to an attorney and other legal safeguards (for an

exhaustive review see Gottschalk 2015). Second, Hispanics in general receive the harshest

sentencing outcomes compared to their white and black peers and may be the result of

concerns regarding their legal status (Demuth 2003; Schlesinger 2005). Recent research

suggests that the Hispanic penalty observed in prior research masks the noncitizen penalty in

sentencing decisions (Light et al. 2014; Wolfe et al. 2011). Notably, the extent to which

immigrants (non-citizens) specifically incur differential criminal justice processing is

unsettled (c.f. Light et al. 2014; Orrick and Piquero 2015) and may differ across jurisdictional

level, i.e., federal, state, or local.

Current Research

The current research is aimed at investigating systematic crime reporting bias across

subsamples distinguished by immigrant generation. Despite a long history of empirical

tests of reporting biases across race, gender, and to a lesser extent, ethnicity, the question of

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 841

123

whether immigrants differentially report arrests has not been addressed. Moreover, the vast

majority of research testing for disparities in offending across self- and official-reports has

relied upon cross-sectional data. We advance knowledge on disparities in arrest reports by

documenting the extent of divergence across self- and official-reports of arrest across first

generation immigrants, second generation and third-plus generation youth. We then use

immigrant generational status to predict reporting divergence (under- and over-reporting).

Data, Measures, and Analytic Strategy

Data

This paper uses data from ten survey waves spanning 7 years from the Pathways to

Desistance study, a longitudinal investigation of the transition from adolescence to young

adulthood among a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Study participants were ado-

lescents who were overwhelming found guilty of a serious offense (almost entirely felony

offenses) in the juvenile or adult court systems in Maricopa County, AZ or Philadelphia

County, PA. Eligible crimes included all felony offenses with the exception of less serious

property crime, as well as misdemeanor weapons offenses and misdemeanor sexual assault.

About 40 % of the offenses that brought the youth into the study were for a ‘person crime’.

These youth were ages 14–17 at the time of enrollment into the study (M = 16.5). A total

of 1354 adolescents were enrolled, representing approximately one in three adolescents

adjudicated on the enumerated charges in each locale during the recruitment period

(November, 2000 through January, 2003). The study sample is comprised mainly of non-

White (41 % Black, 34 % Hispanic) males (86 %), who were, on average, 16 years of age

at baseline with an average age of 14.9 years at their first petition. Study participants

completed a baseline interview at the time of enrollment followed by interviews every

6 months for the first 3 years of the study and annually thereafter through 7 years.

Information regarding the rationale and overall design of the study can be found elsewhere

(Mulvey et al. 2004; Schubert et al. 2004).

Measures

Arrest

The self-report offending data contains a binary indicator of an arrest based on an interview

question which asks the participant if they were ‘‘arrested and charged’’ since the date of

the last interview. Official records (based on petitions found in juvenile records in each

jurisdiction prior to age 18 and arrests appearing in FBI records thereafter) are assigned to

a recall period based on the date of the petition/arrest as mapped onto the dates covered

within a recall period. For both self- and official-reports, we used a binary indicator of a

petition/arrest by wave, where, as noted earlier, the recall periods from waves one through

six correspond to 6-month recalls, while waves seven through ten correspond to 12-month

recalls. 4 The seriousness of the adjudication charge for the initial referring petition (used as

the basis for study eligibility) was coded using a severity ranking system (Gottfredson and

4 For the first six waves, official records were based on petitions and the self-report records were based on

arrests, while for remaining waves both self-reports and official records are based on arrests.

842 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

Baron 1993). The rank order for the ‘referral seriousness rate’ variable ranges from status

(coded 1; .7 %), misdemeanor (coded 2; 37 %), through to felonious assault, felony with a

weapon (coded 8; 16.5 %), and murder, rape, arson (coded 9; 1.9 %).

Offending

Self-reported involvement of offending across a variety of 22 offenses was captured

annually. This measure is a revised version of a common self-reported delinquency

measure (Huizinga et al. 1991) of the number of crimes committed including: (1) destroyed

or damaged property, (2) set fire to house, building, etc., (3) rape, (4) murder, (5) shot at

someone, (6) beaten up someone badly, (7) been in a fight, (8) beaten up, threatened or

attacked someone as part of a gang, (9) entered/broken in a building to steal, (10) used

checks/credit cards illegally, (11) stolen a car/motorcycle to keep or sell, (12) prostitution,

(13) stolen something from a store, (14) stolen a car/motorcycle to keep or sell, (15)

carjacked someone, (16) taken something from another by force (with a weapon), (17)

taken something from another by force (without a weapon), (18) bought/received/sold

stolen property, (19) sold marijuana, (20) sold other illegal drugs, (21) drove drunk or high,

and (22) carried a gun. These items tap into involvement in a range of aggressive (e.g.,

been in a fight; shot at someone) and income generating (e.g., bought/received/sold stolen

property) offenses. For the current analysis, we use the total offending variety proportion.

In this measure, the numerator is the number of different types of acts endorsed and the

denominator is the number of items for which the subject gives either a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’

answer. All items which the subject refused to answer, replied ‘‘don’t know’’, or was not

asked are removed from the denominator. The closer this figure is to ‘‘1’’, the greater the

variety of offenses the youth has committed.

Immigrant Generational Status

We determine immigrant status using information on the country of birth of the youth and

his/her parents (Pew Research Center 2013; Rumbaut and Ewing 2007). First generation

immigrants are those respondents born outside the US with foreign-born parents (n = 83;

6.4 % of the total sample). Second generation immigrants include respondents born in the

US with at least one foreign-born parent (n = 210; 15.5 % of the total sample). Because

the vast majority of immigrant youth in these data are of Latino ancestry the results may

not generalize to immigrants of other ancestries. The largest group of first generation

immigrants in the sample is of Mexican ancestry (61.8 % of the first generation subsample)

and this subset resides exclusively in Phoenix. Clearly Mexican immigrants dwarf other

immigrant ethnicities in these data; however, this disproportionality corresponds with

general population trends whereby immigrants of Mexican ancestry comprise the largest

proportion of immigrants in the US (Fortuny and Chaudry 2011). The second largest

subset, those with Puerto Rican ancestry (26.6 %), is located exclusively in Philadelphia.

Although Puerto Ricans are US citizens by birth, we follow precedent set in previous

research which excludes them from the native-born US sample as they often experience

many of the obstacles to incorporation that other immigrant groups face (see e.g.,

Hirschman 2001). Third-plus generation youth refer to respondents born in the US with

US-born parents (n = 1061). The majority of native-born youth are Black (n = 549; 41 %

of the total sample), followed by White (n = 253; 19 % of the total sample) and Hispanic

(n = 208; 15 % of the total sample), with a small group designated as ‘‘other’’ race/

ethnicity (n = 51; 4 % of the total sample). Examined across immigrant generational

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 843

123

subsample, we find no significant differences in the proportion male or mean age at

baseline (see Table 1). Looking at the race/ethnic breakdown across immigrant status, we

find a significantly higher proportion of Black respondents and a significantly lower pro-

portion of Hispanic respondents among third-plus generation youth compared to first and

second generation immigrants.

Controls

We include two factors known to influence offending and the modeling of trajectories of

offending overtime: early onset of problem behavior and time spent off the street (e.g.,

incarcerated). A series of five questions are used to establish the early onset of problem

behavior (problems before the age of 11). These questions were selected from the Psy-

chopathy Checklist—Youth Version (Forth et al. 2003). Early problem behavior is oper-

ationalized as a summary of total items endorsed including: cheating, disturbing class,

being drunk/stoned, stealing, and fighting. Time secure is a time-varying covariate cap-

turing the proportion of time spent in a secure facility. Prior research has highlighted the

importance of controlling for street time when measuring longitudinal patterns of

offending (see Eggleston et al. 2004; Piquero et al. 2001).

Analytic Strategy

The analytic framework for the current research moves from description to prediction of

systematic crime reporting bias. In agreement with Laub (2010: 423) noting the lost art of

‘‘descriptive quantitative criminology’’ we see description as a key tool to understanding

the fundamental elements of behavior. Exploiting the detailed self- and official reported

measures of arrest, we begin by examining the prevalence and longitudinal arrest trends

within subsamples of immigrant generations (level of correspondence of self-reported and

officially-reported arrests among first, second, and third-plus immigrant generations) and

between subsamples of immigrant generations (extent of under-reporting, over-reporting,

and divergence in reporting patterns). Following this descriptive discussion, we next

perform a series of robustness analyses to examine the sensitivity of our findings to

alternative modeling approaches including analyses conducted on the subsample of

Table 1 Sample descriptive statistics by immigrant generation, pathways to desistance study

First generation Second generation Third-plus generation

N 83 210 994

% of sample 6.40 16.30 77.20

Mean age at baseline 16.13 16.11 16.02

Proportion male 0.86 0.88 0.86

Proportion black 0.01 0.05 0.52

Proportion hispanic 0.88 0.82 0.20

Early onset 1.08 1.58 1.54

Pre-baseline mean official arrest rate 2.81 3.08 2.90

Arrest referral seriousness rate 3.88 4.23 4.51

Cumulative mean self-report arrest rate 1.52 2.03 2.05

Cumulative mean official-report arrest rate 1.53 2.15 2.08

844 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

Hispanic youth, permutation analyses (Good 2013), and an analysis of trajectories of

offending from adolescence through to young adulthood using a series of hierarchical

linear models (HLM version 6.04, Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).

Results

Arrest Trends

All youth were selected into the sample because they were adjudicated of a crime. While

this means that all respondents have a history of an official criminal justice sanction, there

is heterogeneity in the extent to which respondents had arrest experience prior to the

baseline interview in this study. To understand the extent to which criminal involvement

pre-baseline varies by immigrant generational status, we assessed mean differences in

official arrest rates prior to baseline. Results are plotted in the first series in Fig. 1. The

average arrest rate pre-baseline does not significantly differ across first (mean = 2.81),

second (mean = 3.08), and third-plus (mean = 2.90) generation youth. In other words,

regardless of immigrant generational status, the youth in this sample have similar levels of

involvement in crime prior to the baseline interview. While offending prior to baseline is

statistically similar across immigrant groups, we test for differences in the seriousness of

the arresting charge to investigate whether, for example, immigrant youth are more likely

to be referred for less serious crimes. We find no significant differences in the seriousness

of the arresting charge across immigrant generations (second series, Fig. 1).

Next, we compared re-arrest patterns following the baseline interview by aggregating

the total number of arrests across all ten waves. Results are presented in the third and

fourth series in Fig. 1. Using both self-reported and officially-reported measures of arrest

we find that first generation immigrants have significantly lower mean arrest rates com-

pared to their second and third-plus generation immigrant peers. Taken together, the arrest

trend findings suggest a pattern whereby youth, distinguished by immigrant generation, are

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Pre-Baseline Mean Official Arrest Rate

Arrest Referral Seriousness Rate

Cumulative Mean Self-Report Arrest Rate

Cumulative Mean Official- Report Arrest Rate

M ea

n Ra

te

First Genera�on Immigrants Second Genera�on Immigrants Third-plus Genera�on Immigrants

Fig. 1 Mean rate of arrest by immigrant generation, pathways to desistance study

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 845

123

statistically similar at baseline, but evidence a pattern of divergence in their offending

behavior over time. 5

Finally, we compared the level of offending over time and plot the prevalence rates for

each group by wave in Fig. 2 for self-reported offending (Fig. 2a), self-reported arrest

(Fig. 2b) and officially recorded arrest (Fig. 2c). In the first few waves following the

adjudication arrest (baseline), rates of offending across all three measures are fairly similar.

In the final waves of the data, involvement in crime and arrest among first generation

immigrants diverges from their second and third-plus generation peers with first generation

immigrants displaying the lowest self-reported and officially recorded involvement in

crime/arrest. Rates of offending, particularly in the final waves, are very similar comparing

second and third-plus generation immigrants.

Within Immigrant Generation Crime Reporting Analysis

Next, we exploit the wave specific crime data and compare self-reported offending, self-

reported arrests and officially reported arrests to test for divergence in reporting practices

across immigrant generations. We begin by assessing the correlation between self-reported

offending and our two indicators of arrest (see Table 2). For each immigrant generation,

rates of self-reported offending decline over time. Comparisons between self-reported

offending and self-reported arrest are moderate for each immigrant generation with a

similar average correlation across all waves (.362 first generation immigrants; .352 second

generation immigrants; .347 third-plus generation immigrants). The strength of association

between self-reported offending and officially recorded arrests is weaker (average strength

of association across waves: .140 first generation immigrants; .241 second generation

immigrants; .248 third-plus generation immigrants).

Next, we compare self-reported arrests and official reported arrests within each immi-

grant generation. In general, the correlation between self and official reports of arrest is

moderate to high across waves for each immigrant generation with a similar average

correlation across all waves (.557 first generation immigrants; .533 second generation

immigrants; .582 third-plus generation immigrants) with few differences in terms of the

variation in wave specific reporting convergence across immigrant generations. We note

that the periods of weaker associations across self-reported and official reported arrests for

first and second generation immigrants, compared to their third-plus generation peers, may

be influenced by differences in sample sizes for these groups. While we cannot rule out that

these statistical differences are not ‘‘real’’ differences, it is notable that in these instances

the trend is representative of higher self-reported arrests compared to official reported

arrests. In other words, first and second generation immigrants appear to over-report their

arrests.

While the correlation values are fairly strong comparing self-report and official reported

arrests, these measures of association combine data across respondents and compare total

numbers of arrests across measurement type. To assess whether individuals who self-report

an arrest have a corresponding officially-recorded arrest, we conducted a series of Chi-

5 An anonymous reviewer observed that a particular strength of this finding, using a sample of adolescents

with an official juvenile record, is that it identifies a similar pattern of lower offending among the first generation immigrant group mimicking the results obtained in research using data from general population samples (see i.e., Bersani 2014; Sampson et al. 2005). This provides an additional level of confidence in the results and adds to the generalizability of the immigrant-specific finding of lower offending across different sampling frames.

846 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

square tests and compare cell convergence and divergence across immigrant generations;

results reported in the final columns in Table 2. These analyses tell us that significant

variation exists in the data. More specifically, regardless of immigrant generation, sig-

nificant variation in individual patterns of reported arrest by measurement type is evident in

each wave.

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120 (a) Propor�on variety self-reported offending

(b) Prevalence of self-reported arrest

(c) Prevalence of officially recorded arrest

n n

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

n n n

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

n n

Fig. 2 Average level of offending over time by immigrant generation, pathways to desistance study

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 847

123

Table 2 Proportion reporting arrest by wave and immigrant generation, pathways to desistance study

SR crime

SR arrest

OR arrest

Correlation: SR crime by SR arrest

Correlation: SR crime by OR arrest

Correlation: SR arrest by OR arrest

Group difference

p value Sig p value Sig p value Sig Chi-sq Sig

First generation

0–6 months 0.069 20.5 19.3 0.383 *** 0.113 0.638 *** 31.778 ***

7–12 months 0.061 16.7 9.6 0.289 ** 0.132 0.643 *** 32.203 ***

13–18 months 0.062 20.5 19.3 0.436 *** 0.349 ** 0.638 *** 31.778 ***

19–24 months 0.040 13.3 16.9 0.318 ** 0.180 0.546 *** 22.336 ***

25–30 months 0.027 17.3 15.7 0.364 * 0.023 0.281 * 5.903 *

31–36 months 0.028 15.7 14.5 0.325 ** 0.080 0.569 *** 22.629 ***

37–48 months 0.027 17.8 16.9 0.127 0.051 0.501 *** 18.311 ***

49–60 months 0.029 18.8 19.3 0.477 *** 0.053 0.310 ** 6.625 **

61–72 months 0.023 13.0 12.0 0.552 *** 0.170 0.489 *** 16.492 ***

73–84 months 0.021 17.5 9.6 0.348 ** 0.247 * 0.704 *** 31.192 ***

Average 0.362 0.140 0.557

Second generation

0-6 months 0.106 25.3 18.1 0.415 *** 0.214 ** 0.443 *** 37.992 ***

7–12 months 0.097 20.8 19.5 0.397 *** 0.293 *** 0.608 *** 70.944 ***

13–18 months 0.069 19.7 20.0 0.295 *** 0.306 *** 0.495 *** 45.974 ***

19–24 months 0.074 25.4 22.4 0.253 *** 0.136 0.546 *** 57.523 ***

25–30 months 0.049 15.7 14.8 0.273 *** 0.260 *** 0.635 *** 76.944 ***

31–36 months 0.057 19.0 14.8 0.303 *** 0.258 *** 0.616 *** 71.711 ***

37–48 months 0.069 22.1 18.6 0.422 *** 0.111 0.235 *** 10.470 ***

49–60 months 0.066 28.7 31.4 0.355 *** 0.280 *** 0.609 *** 69.804 ***

61–72 months 0.063 24.6 23.3 0.438 *** 0.350 *** 0.576 *** 60.665 ***

73–84 months 0.049 23.7 31.9 0.369 *** 0.198 ** 0.567 *** 54.336 ***

Average 0.352 0.241 0.533

Third-plus generation

0-6 months 0.081 15.8 15.2 0.344 *** 0.209 *** 0.550 *** 298.960 ***

7––12 months 0.069 17.8 16.6 0.345 *** 0.265 *** 0.616 *** 376.135 ***

13–18 months 0.065 17.4 17.4 0.311 *** 0.272 *** 0.637 *** 391.173 ***

19–24 months 0.060 20.5 19.9 0.356 *** 0.265 *** 0.634 *** 386.517 ***

25–30 months 0.050 19.2 19.0 0.395 *** 0.237 *** 0.602 *** 351.198 ***

31–36 months 0.050 23.9 18.4 0.310 *** 0.247 *** 0.592 *** 341.019 ***

37–48 months 0.067 30.9 17.5 0.395 *** 0.253 *** 0.427 *** 173.355 ***

49–60 months 0.059 28.5 30.4 0.336 *** 0.260 *** 0.605 *** 347.484 ***

61–72 months 0.052 27.7 19.1 0.341 *** 0.257 *** 0.645 *** 385.078 ***

73–84 months 0.046 22.6 24.5 0.341 *** 0.210 *** 0.515 *** 238.679 ***

Average 0.347 0.248 0.582

* p \ .05

** p \ .01

*** p \ .001

848 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

Between Immigrant Generation Crime Reporting Analysis

The results of the within immigrant generation crime reporting analyses are suggestive of

important differences in reporting practices across self-reported and official reported

measures of offending. The extent to which these differences influence findings comparing

patterns of involvement in crime across subsamples distinguished by immigrant generation

rests on whether we observe systematic crime reporting differences by immigrant gener-

ation. That is, if all youth similarly under- or over-report their involvement in crime, then

comparisons across groups are not affected by this difference. We investigate systematic

crime reporting bias by comparing wave-specific rates of convergence (0 arrests reported

in both self-reports and official reports; 1 arrest reported in both self-reports and official

reports) and divergence (a self-reported arrest but no official recorded arrest; and vice

versus) across arrest reporting measures. As shown in Fig. 3, we find a high degree of

convergence (lines in the top portion of the figure) across arrest report measures regardless

of immigrant generation or wave. The average rate of convergence across waves is 86.83

for first generation immigrants, 83.88 for second generation immigrants, and 85.84 for

third-plus generation immigrants. As the figure shows, the trend in convergence across

arrest reporting measure is fairly linear for each immigrant group.

While convergence (and divergence) rates are similar for all immigrant generational

groups, there may be important patterns of divergence (over- or under-reporting) in arrest

reporting measures. We disaggregate divergence in reporting practices and compare pat-

terns of over-reporting (self-reporting an arrest in a wave with no officially recorded arrest)

and under-reporting (officially recorded arrest in a wave with no self-reported arrest) across

immigrant generation. Because much of the criticism of research on immigrant involve-

ment in crime is levied at potential under-reporting of crime among first generation

immigrants, we show patterns of under-reporting in Fig. 3 (lines in the bottom portion of

the figure; results for over-reporting are available upon request). Again, while we observe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 6 Wave 7 Wave 8 Wave 9 Wave 10

First Genera�on Second Genera�on Third-Plus Genera�on

Fig. 3 Convergence in self-report and official-report arrests (top portion) and under-reporting of arrests (bottom portion) by Wave and immigrant generation, pathways to desistance study

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 849

123

minor fluctuation in reporting over time, the general trend of under-reporting over time is

characterized by similarity across immigrant generational groups.

Robustness Analyses

We perform a series of supplemental analyses to test the robustness of our findings presented

above. First, to ensure that our findings are not confounded by differences in the proportions

of ethnic and racial groups found in the three immigrant generational subsamples, we select

out Hispanic youth and reanalyze the data. The findings using the Hispanic only sample are

remarkably similar to those found using the full sample reported above.

Second, we perform a series of permutation analyses (Good 2013) to test whether facets

of the data may have distorted the results. Prior analyses include assumptions about the

normality of the distribution, homogeneity of variance, and independence. Permutation

tests are a type of randomization method that offer an improvement over standard para-

metric approaches in that they constitute a distribution free test. In these tests, real data are

‘‘shuffled’’ to obtain all possible arrangements of the data values. Information on the self-

reported arrest variable is resorted 1000 times and then the relationship between officially

reported arrests and immigrant generational status conditional on the shuffled self-reported

arrest variable are compared. Because the total number of possible permutations is large,

we utilize a Monte Carlo approach and randomly estimate 1000 permutations of the data

(StataCorp 2013). The obtained value is the probability of producing values equal to or

more extreme than the observed value given the number of permutations calculated. In our

example, if we shuffle data on the self-reported arrest variable, these analyses test whether

our observed relationships between immigrant generation and crime maintain. Results

from the permutation analyses (available upon request) confirm the pattern of findings

regarding the relationships between immigration and crime reporting and provide further

confidence in the results detailed above.

Finally, we perform a stronger test of systematic crime reporting bias by conducting a

series of hierarchical longitudinal models using immigrant generation as a predictor of

divergence in arrest reporting measures (analytic details for the longitudinal hierarchical

models are provided in the ‘‘Appendix’’). Controlling for the influence of age, gender,

race/ethnicity, criminal history, and time spent incarcerated, we examine whether immi-

grant status predicts arrest reporting divergence. The inclusion of the controls means the

reference group for the intercept is white, third-plus generation, women. To situate this

research with extant literature on the immigration-crime nexus, we begin by predicting

general involvement in crime (results available upon request) using three different

dependent variables: proportion of involvement in a variety of self-reported offenses,

prevalence of self-reported arrest, and prevalence of officially recorded arrest. Similar to

previous research, first generation immigrant status is associated with a reduced level of

offending when assessing self-reports of offending generally and the prevalence of self-

reported arrests; first generation immigrant status was not significant in the model assessing

the prevalence of an officially-reported arrest. No significant effects were observed for the

second generation immigrant control for any outcome.

Next, we shift our focus to measures of arrest reporting divergence (overall divergence,

under-reporting, and over-reporting) and examine the influence of immigrant generation

controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, criminal history and time spent incarcerated;

results reported in Table 3. We include a new time-varying covariate in these models, pro-

portion of involvement in a variety of self-reported offenses, to control for individual dif-

ferences in the severity of offending (i.e., heightened levels of criminal behavior) on crime

850 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

reporting practices under the assumption that more serious offenders may be less accurate

sources of information. Notably, results are robust and maintain in models excluding this

control. We find no evidence that first generation immigrants exhibit a significantly differ-

ential pattern of reporting compared to their native-born peers. The only significant effect

observed for immigrant generational status is found when analyzing the likelihood of under-

reporting (officially-recorded arrest without a corresponding self-reported arrest) where

under-reporting is slightly higher among second generation immigrants.

Discussion

Research has repeatedly shown a persistent pattern of lower rates of offending among

foreign-born, first generation immigrants compared to their US born peers. Despite the

consistency of this finding, the extent to which systematic crime reporting biases differ-

entially affect first generation immigrants introduces an important point of contestation to

this body of research. While the challenge of crime reporting biases affect all demographic

groups, experiences with and facets of the criminal justice system, both in the US and

supplanted from one’s country of origin, uniquely affect the foreign-born and create the

potential for heightened rates of reporting biases among first generation immigrants. The

purpose of this research was to attend to this gap in knowledge by first, measuring the

prevalence of crime reporting disparities across subsamples of immigrants distinguished by

generational status, and second, using immigrant generational status to predict divergence

(under- and over-reporting) in arrest reports across self- and official measures of arrest.

Our analyses revealed a series of notable findings. First, while we find statistical similarity

in average arrest rates and arrest referral seriousness in the period leading up to adjudication

(and entry into the study) across groups distinguished by immigrant generation, this similarity

evaporated when we assess patterns of arrest overtime. Specifically, cumulative counts of

Table 3 Hierarchical, multivariate analysis of divergence in arrest reports by immigrant generation, pathways to desistance study

Divergence in arrest reports

Under-reporting arrests

Over-reporting arrests

Coeff SE Coeff SE Coeff SE

Intercept -2.276*** 0.069 -3.108*** 0.071 -2.748*** 0.079

First generation -0.039 0.101 0.046 0.099 -0.101 0.125

Second generation 0.097 0.066 0.192** 0.068 -0.060 0.074

Male 0.601*** 0.063 0.731*** 0.063 0.386*** 0.073

Black 0.027 0.056 0.060 0.058 -0.017 0.065

Hispanic 0.057 0.062 -0.040 0.063 0.125 0.070

Early onset 0.028 0.019 0.021 0.021 0.026 0.023

Time-varying covariates

Time secure -0.540*** 0.054 -0.530*** 0.066 -0.368*** 0.060

Variety self-reported offending 1.610*** 0.199 -1.370*** 0.212 3.163*** 0.220

* p \ .05

** p \ .01

*** p \ .001

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 851

123

involvement in crime, captured with self-report and official reports of arrest, diverge with

first-generation immigrant youth displaying a lower average rate of self-reported and offi-

cially recorded arrest compared to their second and third-plus generation peers. This findingis

particularly notable given that the sample was selected based on having an official juvenile

record. That is, similar to studies focusing on samples culled from the general population (see

e.g., Bersani 2014; Sampson et al. 2005), we find that within a sample of juveniles with an

official record, first generation immigrants display a pattern of lower levels of offending

compared to their second and third-plus generation peers.

Second, when we compared the correspondence between self-reported offending, self-

reports of arrest and official reports of arrest within group distinguished by immigrant gen-

eration, we found a high degree of similarity. In general, while the strength of association was

weaker when comparing self-reported offending with both measures of arrest for all groups,

the correspondence across arrest measures was equally strong for first, second, and third-plus

generation immigrants. The few instances where differences were apparent reflect patterns

where first and second generation immigrants show a tendency to over-report arrests (more

self-reported arrests than officially reported arrests). Moreover, when we assessed longitu-

dinal patterns of convergence (and divergence) in self- and official-reports of arrest, we found

a very high degree of convergence regardless of immigrant generation with average rates of

convergence in the mid-80 %. While convergence across crime reporting measures in these

data are not perfect, they are consistently high regardless of immigrant generational status

reaching convergence levels similar to those found in studies using general population

samples (see review in Piquero et al. 2014).

Third, turning to between immigrant generation comparisons, when we considered

differences in the likelihood of offending with respect to the frequency of self-reported

crime, prevalence of self-reported arrest, and the prevalence of officially-recorded arrest by

immigrant status, consistent with previous literature first-generation immigrant youth

display the lowest likelihood of offending for two of our three offending outcomes (fre-

quency of self-reported crime; prevalence of self-reported arrest) compared to their peers.

When we focused on investigating divergence in arrest reports, including a focused

attention on the under- and over-reporting of arrests, we find no evidence of systematic

crime reporting biases across groups distinguished by immigrant generation. That is, first-

generation youth did not exhibit a significantly different pattern of arrest reporting com-

pared to their US-born peers. In one instance, results reveal that second generation

immigrants were significantly more likely to under-report arrests. Collectively, these

analyses bear little evidence to suggest that immigrants, particularly foreign-born, first

generation immigrants, exhibit systematic crime reporting bias.

The findings from this research contribute to the body of knowledge on the immigrant-

crime nexus generally, and with respect to potential crime reporting differences across

groups in particular. An oft-repeated finding in the literature has been that the foreign-born

do not pose a unique threat in terms of their criminal proclivities; in fact, research con-

sistently shows that first generation immigrants are characterized by significantly lower

rates of offending compared to their similarly situated peers, a finding that shows up in

research utilizing different data sources and different sampling frames. This research

augments this work by demonstrating that this persistent pattern is not the result of

divergence in crime reporting practices. While measures of arrest across self- and official-

reports are not perfectly aligned, a limiting feature of the research in this area more

generally, divergence in reporting practices does not differentially affect first generation

immigrants. Stated simply, we find no evidence that foreign-born, first generation

852 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

immigrants under-report their arrest history. In fact, when evidence of divergence exists it

is in the direction of immigrants over-reporting arrests.

We envision several directions for subsequent work. First, as our sample sizes were

small, we encourage replication of this research using larger samples as well as the use of

data covering a longer time period; to date, we are unware of data meeting these char-

acteristics that also contain official and self-reports of offending for immigrants and their

peers. Second, while this research examines offending behavior among mostly Mexican,

and to a lesser extent, Puerto Rican immigrants, who have been the focus of immigrant-

crime concerns, heterogeneity in immigrant experiences based on ethnicity and country of

origin were limited in this study due to sampling strategy; different groups of immigrants,

especially Asian, European, and Middle-Eastern immigrants should be examined to test for

the generalizability of these findings. The latter group in particular, which is ill-studied in

criminology, would be of special interest considering perceptions that exist about Middle-

Eastern immigrants. Third, a more general area of work would consider how individuals

interpret the experience of an arrest or police contact. That is, do some youth, especially

immigrant youth whom do not fully understand the American criminal justice system,

perceive police stops, searches, or arrests in the same manner?

The current sociopolitical context is rife with disputed concerns levied at the criminal

proclivities of the immigrant population; the results of this research inform these debates

by providing empirically grounded evidence that the foreign-born pose no unique criminal

threat. Rather, foreign-born first generation immigrants are characterized by significantly

lower levels of offending which, as we show here, is not attributable to a differential

tendency to under-report their involvement in crime.

Appendix

The longitudinal analysis of individuals is complicated by a number of issues. First,

observations gathered over time are nested within each individual violating the indepen-

dence assumption of ordinary least squares regression which affects the estimation of

standard errors and increases the likelihood of obtaining a type 1 error. Second, because

individuals display at least a modest level of behavioral stability over time, individuals are

more similar to themselves across observations than they are to other individuals (Osgood

2009). Third, the variable number and spacing of observations across respondents results in

an unbalanced model. HLM is flexible and can accommodate these factors (Raudenbush

and Bryk 2002; Snijders and Bosker 1999).

Equations are specified using either Poisson (count dependent variables) or Bernoulli

(dichotomous dependent variables) extensions of HLM. In the interest of space, we detail

here the equations using a Poisson model; modeling decisions are consistently applied. We

allow for overdispersion in each model as the addition of the overdispersion parameter has

been shown to result in more accurate significance tests (Osgood 2000). To examine

offending trajectories over time we use a two-level hierarchical model where offending is

measured at level 1 and includes repeated measures of self or official reports of arrest for

individuals across 10 waves. The level 1, within individual equation is:

git ¼ log kitð Þ

git ¼ p0i þ p1i ageð Þit þ p2i age 2

� � it þ p3i age3

� � it þ p4i timesecureð Þit

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 853

123

where gitis the log of the average arrest rate for individual i at age t. To capture the potential of non-linear arrest (or divergence) trajectories, the equation is specified to follow

a cubic function of age. The age terms were grand mean centered to allow for more

stable estimation due to collinearlity between the age terms. Grand mean centering yielded

an interpretation of p1i as the average rate of growth across the entire observation period. We observe standard growth parameter models prior to the addition of predictors to assess

whether a cubic model is necessary to capture accurately the longitudinal trend in our

outcome of interest excluding higher order polynomials when not significant. The pro-

portion of time spent in a secure facility is included as a time-varying covariate and is

grand-mean centered. The subscript i attached to variables at level 1 indicates that these

variables can take on different values for each individual. The subscript t indicates that the

variables can take on different values over time.

Individual level characteristics were entered into the equation at level 2. Coefficient

effects at this level indicate how much variation in the intercept (i.e., initial offending

level) and slopes (i.e., growth in the offending trajectory) is explained by between-indi-

vidual characteristics. The level 2, between-individual equations are:

p0i ¼ b00 þ b01...0k controlsð Þiþr0i

p1i ¼ b10 þ r1i

p2i ¼ b20 þ r2i

p3i ¼ b30 þ r3i

p4i ¼ b40 where variation in the log of the crime rate at the age coded as zero (the mean age for the

sample) is explained by an array of sociodemographic and behavioral controls. The

dichotomous measures were left in their original form (not centered) allowing for the

generation of offending ‘‘profiles’’ for specific demographic groups. We allow for variation

between individuals on the dependent crime/arrest variables (p0i) and age (p1i, p2i, p3i) parameters as indicated by the error terms (r0i), (r1i), (r2i) and (r3i). The inclusion of an

error term on the age slope indicates that the estimated rate of crime/arrest is allowed to

vary across individuals and that the model allows for gradual change in arrest over time

across individuals (see Horney et al. 1995).

References

Bersani BE (2014) An examination of first and second generation immigrant offending trajectories. Justice Q 31:315–343

Bersani BE, Loughran TA, Piquero AR (2014) Comparing patterns and predictors of immigrant offending among a sample of adjudicated youth. J Youth Adolesc 43:1914–1933

Bowler AC (1931) Recent statistics on crime and the foreign born. In: National Commission (ed) On law observance and enforcement: report on crime and the foreign born (part II). Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 79–196

Brame R, Fagan J, Piquero AR, Schubert CA, Steinberg L (2004) Criminal careers of serious delinquents in two cities. Youth Violence Juv Justice 2:256–272

Chaves LR (2008) The Latino threat: constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Corchado A (2013) Midnight in Mexico: a reporter’s journey through a country’s descent into darkness. Penguin Books, London

854 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

Correia ME (2010) Determinants of attitudes toward police of Latino immigrants and non-immigrants. J Crim Justice 38:99–107

Davies G, Fagan J (2012) Crime and enforcement in immigrant neighborhoods: evidence from New York City. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 641:99–124

Davis WE (1985) Language and the justice system: problems and issues. Justice Syst J 10:353–364 Davis RC, Henderson NJ (2003) Willingness to report crimes: the role of ethnic group membership and

community efficacy. Crime Delinq 49:564–580 Davis RC, Henderson NJ (2007) Immigrants and law enforcement: a comparison of native-born and foreign-

born americans’ opinions of the police. Int Rev Victimol 14:81–94 Decker SH, Lewis PG, Provine DM, Varsanyi MW (2009) On the frontier of local law enforcement: local

police and federal immigration law. In: McDonald WF (ed) Sociology of crime, law, and deviance. Emerald/JAI Press, Bingley, pp 261–278

Demuth S (2003) Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: a comparison of hispanic, black and white felony arrestees. Criminology 41:873–908

Eggleston EP, Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2004) Methodological sensitivities to latent class analysis of long- term criminal trajectories. J Quant Criminol 20:1–26

Ewing WA, Martı́nez DE, Rumbaut RG (2015) The criminalization of immigration in the United States. American Immigration Council Special Report, Washington, DC

Farrington DP, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Kammen WB, Schmidt L (1996) Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on boys, mothers, and teachers: concurrent and predictive validity for African-Americans and Caucasians. Criminology 34:493–517

Ferraro V (2016) Immigration and crime in the new destinations, 2000–2007: a test of the disorganizing effect of migration. J Quant Criminol 32(1):23–45

Forth AE, Kosson DS, Hare RD (2003) The hare psychopathy checklist: youth version. Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems, Inc., New York

Fortuny K, Chaudry A (2011) Children of immigrants: growing national and state diversity. Brief 1. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC

Good PI (2013) Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses. Springer, Berlin

Gottfredson DC, Baron WH (1993) Deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders. Criminology 31(4):591–611 Gottschalk M (2015) Caught: the prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University

Press, Princeton Hagan J, Palloni A (1998) Immigration and crime in the United States. In: Smith JP, Edmonston B (eds) The

immigration debate: studies on the economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of immigration. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 367–387

Harris KM (1999) The health status and risk behaviors of adolescents in immigrant families. In: Hernandez DJ (ed) Children of immigrants: health, adjustment, and public assistance. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 286–347

Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage, Beverly Hills Hirschman C (2001) The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: a test of the segmented-assimilation

hypothesis. Demography 38:317–336 Horney J, Wayne Osgood D, Marshall IH (1995) Criminal careers in the short-term: intra-individual

variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. Am Sociol Rev 60:655–673 Huizinga D, Esbensen F-A, Weiher AW (1991) Are there multiple paths to delinquency? J Crim Law

Criminol 82:83–118 Immigration Commission (1911) Reports of the immigration commission: immigration and crime.

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Jennings WG, Zgoba KM, Piquero AR, Reingle JM (2013) Offending Trajectories among native-born and

foreign-born hispanics to late middle age. Sociol Inq 83:622–647 Jolliffe D, Farrington DP, David Hawkins J, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Kosterman R (2003) Predictive,

concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self-reported delinquency. Crim Behav Mental Health 13:179–197

Kirk DS (2006) Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. J Quant Criminol 22:107–129

Kirk DS, Papachristos AV, Fagan J, Tyler TR (2012) The paradox of law enforcement in immigrant communities: does tough immigration enforcement undermine public safety? Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 641:79–98

Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Phillips MD, Thornberry TP, Bell KA (2013) Explaining Systematic bias in self- reported measures: factors that affect the under- and over-reporting of self-reported arrests. Justice Q 30:501–528

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 855

123

Kubrin CE (2014) Secure or insecure communities? Criminol Public Policy 13:323–338 Kubrin C, Desmond SA (2015) The power of place revisited: why immigrant communities have lower levels

of adolescent violence. Youth Violence Juv Justice 13(4):345–366 Lab SP, Allen RB (1984) Self-report and official measures: a further examination of the validity issue.

J Crim Justice 12:445–455 Laub JH (2010) Nurturing the journal of quantitative criminology through late childhood: retrospective

memories (distorted?) from a former editor. J Quant Criminol 26:421–424 Lee MT, Ramiro M Jr (2009) Immigration reduces crime: an emerging scholarly consensus. In: Mcdonald

WF (ed) Immigration, crime and justice, sociology of crime, law and deviance, vol 13. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 3–16

Light MT, Massoglia M, King RD (2014) Citizenship and punishment: the salience of National membership in US. Criminal courts. Am Sociol Rev 79:825–847

Lodge HC (1909) Speeches and addresses, 1884–1909. Houghton Mifflin, Boston MacDonald JM, Saunders J (2012) Are Immigrant youth less violent? Specifying the reasons and mecha-

nisms. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 641:125–147 MacDonald JM, Hipp JR, Gill C (2013) The effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood

crime rates. J Quant Criminol 29:191–215 Maxfield MG, Weller BL, Widom CS (2000) Comparing self-reports and official records of arrests. J Quant

Criminol 16:87–110 Menjivar C, Bejarano C (2004) Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United

States: a case study from the phoenix metropolitan area. Ethn Racial Stud 27:120–148 Morenoff JD, Astor A (2006) Immigrant assimilation and crime: generational differences in youth violence

in Chicago. In: Martinez R Jr, Valenzuela A Jr (eds) Immigration and crime: race, ethnicity and violence. New York University Press, New York, pp 36–63

Mulvey EP, Steinberg L, Fagan J, Cauffman E, Piquero AR, Chassin L, Knight GP, Brame R, Schubert CA, Hecker T, Losoya SH (2004) Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence Juv Justice 2:213–236

Orebaugh DA (1929) Crime, degeneracy and immigration: their interrelations and interreactions. The Gorham Press, Boston

Orrick EA, Piquero AR (2015) Assessing the impact of Mexican nativity on sentence length. Crim Justice Policy Rev 26:643–664

Osgood DW (2000) Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. J Quant Criminol 16:21–43 Osgood DW (2009) Statistical models for life events and criminal behavior. In: Piquero AR, Weisburd D

(eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, pp 375–396 Ousey GC, Kubrin CE (2014) Immigration and the changing nature of homicide in US cities, 1980–2010.

J Quant Criminol 30:453–483 Passel JS, Cohn D (2008) U.S. population projections: 2005–2050. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC Pew Research Center (2013) Second-generation americans: a portrait of the adult children of immigrants.

Pew Research Center, Washington, DC Piquero AR (2008) Disproportionate minority contact. Future Child 18:59–79 Piquero AR, Brame R (2008) Assessing the race-/ethnicity-crime relationship in a sample of serious ado-

lescent delinquents. Crime Delinq 54:390–422 Piquero AR, Blumstein A, Brame R, Haapanen R, Mulvey EP, Nagin DS (2001) Assessing the impact of

exposure time and incapacitation on longitudinal trajectories of criminal offending. J Adolesc Res 16:54–74

Piquero AR, Bersani BE, Loughran TA, Fagan J (2014a) Longitudinal patterns of legal socialization in first- generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and native-born serious youthful offenders. Crime Delinq. doi:10.1177/0011128714545830

Piquero AR, Schubert CA, Brame R (2014b) Comparing official and self-report records of offending across gender and race/ethnicity in a longitudinal study of serious youthful offenders. J Res Crime Delinq 51:525–555

Pogrebin MR, Poole EE (1990) Culture conflict and crime in the Korean–American community. Crim Justice Policy Rev 4:69–78

Powell D, Perreira KM, Harris KM (2010) Trajectories of delinquency from adolescence to adulthood. Youth Soc 41:475–502

Provine DM, Varsanyi M, Lewis PG, Decker SH (2012) Growing tensions between civic membership and enforcement in the devolution of immigration control. In: Kubrin Z, Martinez J (eds) Punishing immigrants: policy, politics and injustice. New York University Press, New York, pp 42–61

Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

856 J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857

123

Rengifo AF, Fratello J (2015) Perceptions of the police by immigrant youth: looking at stop-and-frisk and beyond using a New York City sample. Youth Violence Juv Justice 13(4):409–427

Roberts J (2011) Why misdemeanors matter: defining effective advocacy in the lower criminal courts. UC Davis Law Rev 45:277–372

Rumbaut RG, Ewing WA (2007) The myth of immigrant criminality and the paradox of assimilation: incarceration rates among native and foreign-born men. Immigration Policy Center, Washington, DC

Rumbaut RG, Gonzales RG, Komaie G, Morgan CV, Rosaura T-E (2006) Immigration and incarceration: patterns and predictors of imprisonment among first- and second-generation young adults. In: Martinez R Jr, Valenzuela A Jr (eds) Immigration and crime: race, ethnicity, and violence. New York University Press, New York, pp 64–89

Sampson RJ (2008) Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts 7:28–33 Sampson RJ, Morenoff J, Raudenbush SW (2005) Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in vio-

lence. Am J Public Health 95:224–232 Schlesinger T (2005) Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Q 22:170–192 Schubert CA, Mulvey EP, Steinberg L, Cauffman E, Losoya S, Hecker T, Chassin L, Knight GP (2004)

Operational lessons from the pathways to desistance project. Youth Violence Juv Justice 2:237–255 Sellin T (1938) Culture conflict and crime. Social Science Research Council, New York Simes JT, Waters MC (2014) The politics of immigration and crime. In: Bucerius SM, Tonry M (eds) The

oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration. Oxford University Press, New York Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.

Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks StataCorp. (2013) Stata statistical software: release 13. StataCorp LP, College Station Sutherland EH (1924/1934) Criminology. J. B. Lippincott Co, Philadelphia Theodore N (2013) Insecure communities: Latino perceptions of police involvement in immigration

enforcement. Department of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: Duffee

D, Crutchfield RD, Mastrofski S, Mazerolle L, McDowall D (eds) Criminal justice 2000: vol. 4: measurement and analysis of crime and justice. National Institute of Justice/Department of Justice, Washington, D.C, pp 33–83

Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2003) Comparison of self-report and official data for measuring crime. In: Pepper JV, Petrie CV (eds) Measurement problems in criminal justice research: workshop summary. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 43–94

Tracy PE (1987) Race and class differences in official and self-reported delinquency. In: Wolfgang ME, Thornberry TP, Figlio RM (eds) From boy to man, from delinquency to crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 87–121

Treyger E, Chalfin A, Loeffler C (2014) Immigration enforcement, policing, and crime: evidence from the secure communities program. Criminol Public Policy 13:285–322

Trump D (2015) Donald trump presidential campaign announcement [Video file]. http://www.c-span.org/ video/?326473-1/donald-trump-presidential-campaign-announcement

Tyler TR, Schulhofer S, Huq A (2010) Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counter-terrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law Soc Rev 44:365–401

U.S. Census Bureau’s (2013) American community survey (ACS). http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/ frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

U.S. Government Accountability Office (2009) Immigration enforcement: better controls needed over program authorizing state and local enforcement of federal immigration laws. GAO-09-109. Report to congressional requesters. GAO, Washington, DC. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-109

Van Vechten CC (1941) The criminality of the foreign born. J Crim Law Criminol 32:139–147 Vaughn MG, Salas-Wright CP, DeLisi M, Maynard BR (2014) The immigrant paradox: immigrants are less

antisocial than native-born Americans. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 49:1129–1137 Wadsworth T (2010) Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of the influence of

immigration on changes in violent crime between 1990 and 2000. Soc Sci Q 91:531–553 Wickersham Report (1931) National commission on law observance and enforcement no. 10. Report on

crime and the foreign born. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Wolfe SE, Pyrooz DC, Spohn CC (2011) Unraveling the effect of offender citizenship status on federal

sentencing outcomes. Soc Sci Res 40:349–362 Zatz MS, Smith H (2012) Immigration, crime and victimization: rhetoric and reality. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci

8:141–159

J Quant Criminol (2017) 33:835–857 857

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

  • Examining Systematic Crime Reporting Bias Across Three Immigrant Generations: Prevalence, Trends, and Divergence in Self-Reported and Official Reported Arrests
    • Abstract
      • Objective
      • Methods
      • Results
      • Conclusions
    • Introduction
    • Prior Literature
      • Official and Self-Reported Offending Comparisons
      • Immigrant Offending: Generational Differences and Crime Reporting Methodology
      • Factors Influencing the Differential Reporting of Offending
    • Current Research
    • Data, Measures, and Analytic Strategy
      • Data
      • Measures
        • Arrest
        • Offending
        • Immigrant Generational Status
        • Controls
      • Analytic Strategy
    • Results
      • Arrest Trends
      • Within Immigrant Generation Crime Reporting Analysis
      • Between Immigrant Generation Crime Reporting Analysis
      • Robustness Analyses
    • Discussion
    • Appendix
    • References